I had a real account on Webdiplomacy.net.  You linked to VDiplomacy.com.

I apologize.  I have written to Matthew and asked him to remove my post.

Thank you.

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: 2Vermont

Buh-bye.

It seems that was the first post of yours that I disliked.

Fare thee well.

For the life of me,  having searched pages 14 to the present, I can't find where 2Vermont said that. But I did find where Ladislaus said that 2Vermont said that.

What 2Vermont said is:

Quote

Trust me, I won't be posting here all that much anymore once I finish doing so.  

which I had interpreted, and by which I hoped that she meant that she would not be posting as much as before, but not that she was leaving us. If you are leaving 2V, be assured that I enjoyed having you here. God bless you, but I hope you'll hang around. At least the women's section!

Hi Nadir,

Thought I'd post one more time to thank you for your kind words.  I also want to make it clear the reason why I am no longer posting (since you and I'm sure others are left wondering).  Since my last goodbye post was too negative, I will just say that the main reason why I am no longer posting is because Feeneyism is allowed to be discussed here.  It is not because of the lack of charity nor because of any issues with certain posters because I was doing just fine ignoring them.  

Hopefully, this post will not be deleted because I do think it's important for others to see why someone leaves a forum.  This way no one will be left wondering why I disappeared and no one can claim they knew why I left.  

 

Quote

the main reason why I am no longer posting is because Feeneyism is allowed to be discussed here.

2V, I don't agree with many of your comments, nonetheless you will be missed.

Re: the quote above - in fairness, someone could insert "sedevacantism" or ____, for Feeneyism, which is usually confined to the subforum.  So don't go there.

Remember us in your prayers please, as we will remember you likewise.

But I did go there.  And yes, of course they could replace it with sedevacantism (although obviously I would disagree that the two are interchangeable).  If they were against the discussion of SV here they could leave on that account.  That's their prerogative (and I'm pretty sure that's happened before).

Anyway, I'm really done now....lol.

 

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: St. Jerome

 "I never spared heretics and have always done my utmost so that the enemies of the Church should also be my enemies."

1- Where is this from?
2- Spared them from what?

This quote is from a letter written by St. Jerome to Pope Damasus in the fights against Arianism which attacked two great mysteries of the Faith: the Trinity and the Incarnation.

37. He ever paid submissive homage to the Church, our supreme teacher through the Roman Pontiffs. Thus, with a view to putting an end to the controversy raging in the East concerning the mystery of the Holy Trinity, he submitted the question to the Roman See for settlement, and wrote from the Syrian desert to Pope Damasus as follows:

I decided, therefore, to consult the Chair of Peter and that Roman faith which the Apostle praised; I ask for my soul's food from that city wherein I first put on the garment of Christ. . .I, who follow no other leader save Christ, associate myself with Your Blessedness, in communion, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For I know the Church was built upon that Rock. . . I beg you to settle this dispute. If you desire it I shall not be afraid to say there are Three Hypostases. If it is your wish let them draw up a Symbol of faith subsequent to that of Nicaea, and let us orthodox praise God in the same form of words as the Arians employ.[60]

38. And in his next letter: "Meanwhile I keep crying out, 'Any man who is joined to Peter's Chair, he is my man'."[61] Since he had learnt this "rule of faith" from his study of the Bible, he was able to refute a false interpretation of a Biblical text with the simple remark: "Yes, but the Church of God does not admit that."[62] When, again, Vigilantius quoted an Apocryphal book, Jerome was content to reply: "A book I have never so much as read! For what is the good of soiling one's hands with a book the Church does not receive?"[63] With his strong insistence on adhering to the integrity of the faith, it is not to be wondered at that he attacked vehemently those who left the Church; he promptly regarded them as his own personal enemies. "To put it briefly," he says, "I have never spared heretics, and have always striven to regard the Church's enemies as my own."[64] To Rufinus he writes: "There is one point in which I cannot agree with you: you ask me to spare heretics - or, in other words - not to prove myself a Catholic."[65] Yet at the same time Jerome deplored the lamentable state of heretics, and adjured them to return to their sorrowing Mother, the one source of salvation;[66] he prayed, too, with all earnestness for the conversion of those "who had quitted the Church and put away the Holy Spirit's teaching to follow their own notions."[67]

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus.html

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Malleus

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: St. Jerome

 "I never spared heretics and have always done my utmost so that the enemies of the Church should also be my enemies."

1- Where is this from?
2- Spared them from what?

This quote is from a letter written by St. Jerome to Pope Damasus in the fights against Arianism which attacked two great mysteries of the Faith: the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Quote

37. He ever paid submissive homage to the Church, our supreme teacher through the Roman Pontiffs. Thus, with a view to putting an end to the controversy raging in the East concerning the mystery of the Holy Trinity, he submitted the question to the Roman See for settlement, and wrote from the Syrian desert to Pope Damasus as follows:

I decided, therefore, to consult the Chair of Peter and that Roman faith which the Apostle praised; I ask for my soul's food from that city wherein I first put on the garment of Christ. . .I, who follow no other leader save Christ, associate myself with Your Blessedness, in communion, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For I know the Church was built upon that Rock. . . I beg you to settle this dispute. If you desire it I shall not be afraid to say there are Three Hypostases. If it is your wish let them draw up a Symbol of faith subsequent to that of Nicaea, and let us orthodox praise God in the same form of words as the Arians employ.[60]

38. And in his next letter: "Meanwhile I keep crying out, 'Any man who is joined to Peter's Chair, he is my man'."[61] Since he had learnt this "rule of faith" from his study of the Bible, he was able to refute a false interpretation of a Biblical text with the simple remark: "Yes, but the Church of God does not admit that."[62] When, again, Vigilantius quoted an Apocryphal book, Jerome was content to reply: "A book I have never so much as read! For what is the good of soiling one's hands with a book the Church does not receive?"[63] With his strong insistence on adhering to the integrity of the faith, it is not to be wondered at that he attacked vehemently those who left the Church; he promptly regarded them as his own personal enemies. "To put it briefly," he says, "I have never spared heretics, and have always striven to regard the Church's enemies as my own."[64] To Rufinus he writes: "There is one point in which I cannot agree with you: you ask me to spare heretics - or, in other words - not to prove myself a Catholic."[65] Yet at the same time Jerome deplored the lamentable state of heretics, and adjured them to return to their sorrowing Mother, the one source of salvation;[66] he prayed, too, with all earnestness for the conversion of those "who had quitted the Church and put away the Holy Spirit's teaching to follow their own notions."[67]

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus.html

Thanks for the source.

I still don't know what he didn't spare them from though.

From blasting them with harsh language perhaps?

Probably spare them from his "Perfect (Holy) Hatred" he spoke of in some of his letters. He replies about heretics: “I have hated them with a perfect hatred".

Quote from: Cantarella

Probably spare them from his "Perfect (Holy) Hatred" he spoke of in some of his letters. He replies about heretics: “I have hated them with a perfect hatred".

I thought Our Lord condemned hating anyone, even enemies.

How does this square with "Love your enemies and bless them that curse you"? Are heretics and enemies of the Church an exception?

Well, that is a good question. It has to do with the concept of virtuous hatred and how it actually belongs to charity.

I think that is best answered by St. Thomas Aquinas here:

From the Summa:

Whether sinners must be loved out of charity

Objection 1: It seems that we should not love sinners out of charity. For it is written in the Psalms:"I have hated the wicked" (Ps 118:113). Now, David had perfect charity. Therefore, sinners should be hated rather than loved, out of charity.

Objection 2: Further, "love is proved by deeds," as St. Gregory says in a homily for Pentecost (In Evang. 30). But good men do no works of love to the wicked: on the contrary they do works that appear to be of hate, according to the Psalm (100: 8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land;" also, God commanded in Exodus (22:18): "You shall not suffer a witch to live." Therefore, sinners should not be loved out of charity.

Objection 3: Further, it is proper to friendship that one should desire and wish good things for one's friends. Now the saints, out of charity, desired evil things for the wicked, according to Psalm 9:18: "May the wicked be turned into Hell." Therefore sinners should not be loved out of charity.

Objection 4: Further, it is proper to friends to rejoice in and desire the same things. Now charity does not make us desire what the sinners desire, nor to rejoice in what gives them joy, but rather the contrary. Therefore, sinners should not be loved out of charity.

Objection 5: Further, it is proper to friends to associate together, according to Ethics (chap 5, n. 3). But we should not associate with sinners, according to 2 Cor 6: 17: "Wherefore come out from among them and be separate." Therefore, we should not love sinners out of charity.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Doctrina Christi I, 30), "When it is said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, it is evident that we ought to look upon every man as our neighbor." Now, sinners do not cease to be men, for sin does not destroy nature. Therefore, we ought to love sinners out of charity.

I answer to these arguments that two things should be considered in the sinner, his nature and his guilt. According to his nature, which he has from God, he has a capacity for eternal happiness upon which the relationship of charity is based. as stated above (A. 3, q. 23, a. 1-5). Wherefore, we ought to love sinners out of charity in respect to their nature. [4]

 On the other hand, their guilt offends God and is an impediment to their eternal happiness. Wherefore, in respect to their guilt, so long as they offend God all sinners ought to be hated, even one's father or mother or kindred, according to Luke (14:26). [5] For it is our duty to hate in the sinner his being a sinner, and to love in him his being a man capable of achieving eternal happiness. [6] This is to love him out of charity for the love of God.

Reply to objection 1: The Prophet hated the iniquitous as such, and the object of his hate was their iniquity. [7]This is the perfect hatred of which the same Prophet says (Ps. 139: 22): "I hate them with a perfect hatred." Now, for this same reason one hates what is bad in a person and loves what is good in him. Hence also this perfect hatred belongs to charity. [8]

Reply to objection 2: As the Philosopher observes (Ethics, 9, 3), when our friends fall into sin, we should not deny them the benefits of friendship so long as there is hope of their mending their ways. And we should help them regain virtue more readily than to regain money, had they lost it, for virtue means more to friendship than money. [9]

 When, however, such persons fall into very great wickedness and become incurable, we should refuse them friendly treatment. It is for this reason that both divine and human laws command such sinners to be put to death, because it is more likely that they will harm others than mend their ways. [10]  

 Nevertheless the judge issues such sentences not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of love of charity, because he prefers the public good to the life of one single person. Moreover, the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner if he converts, as expiation for his crime; and if he does not convert, it profits him by putting an end to his sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin more.

Reply to objection 3: Such like imprecations that we come across in the Holy Scripture may be understood in three ways: First, by way of prediction, not by way of wish, so that the sense is: "The wicked shall be turned into Hell."
Second, by way of wish, so that the wisher�s desire refers not to the punishment the man receives, but to the justice of the punisher, according to Psalm 58:11: "The just shall rejoice when he shall see revenge." For according to the Book of Wisdom (1:13), not even God "delights in the perdition of the wicked" when He punishes them, but He rejoices in His justice, according to the Psalm (11:7): "The Lord is righteous and He loves righteousness."
Third, so that this desire refers to the removal of the guilt, not of the chastisement, [11] in such a way that the sin be destroyed, but the man may live.

Reply to objection 4: We love sinners out of charity not so as to desire what they desire and to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them desire what we desire and rejoice in what makes us rejoice. [12] Hence it is written (Jer 15:19): "Let them convert unto you; but you shall not convert unto them."

Reply to objection 5: The weak should avoid communicating with sinners on account of the danger of being perverted by them. But it is commendable for the perfect, [13] whose fall is not to be feared, to communicate with sinners in order to convert them. Thus, the Lord ate and drank with sinners as reported in Matthew 9:11-13. Yet all should avoid the society of sinners when it means participation in sin. Thus it is written (2 Cor 6:17): "Go away from among them and touch not the unclear thing," that is, what is in accordance with sin. [14]

 

Virtuous hatred belongs to charity

St. Luke (14:26) says: "If any man comes to Me, and hates not his father and mother, and his wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." It is a mistake to think that Our Lord did not teach that we can hate. There is a holy hatred that is an evangelical virtue. A love that would not generate hatred would not be love. Indeed, if I love someone, I must hate what brings evil to him. It is this holy hatred - its motives, nature and limits - that is magnificently taught in this text of St. Thomas.

When Should We Love Sinners & When Should We Hate Them?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/D031_Goodheart_2.htm