You just insulted Frances,who posted an excellent comment.

I suggest Matthew read these posts by Icterus and see how he despises the Catholics on this forum and how he presumes to abuse them. He constantly attempts to provoke an emotional reaction from others with his insults, and therefore meets the very definition of TROLL.

I strongly suspect that he is an infiltrator from some atheist website.
 :devil2:

Quote

The pre-1962 traditional Mass is still the same as St. Pius V's.

But your book page say 'later revisions are of slight importance'.  So, there were later revisions.  Why are they of slight importance?  That's essentially what Francis is saying about changing missals.  Provide some sort of reason for what you think.

Or, in other words 'because I say so, bye'.

Par for the course.

SJB wrote:

Quote

I think Fr. Adrian Fortescue was quoted, not "because I said so."

As usual, you don't know what's going on.  You have a real talent for that.

I questioned why Fr. Fortescue can blithely say changes are insignificant and a poster can blithely cite him as an authority on that without offering any real argumentation.  If the Pope calls down the vengeance of heaven for any changes, the one thing you cannot then do in debate is say 'well, any changes that were made are not significant'.  That's dodging the issue and dishonest.  

SJB said:

Quote

Nobody denies this but icterus is wrongly implying the NOM is somehow just another change in the Roman Missal.

No, SJB, as usual you are a day late and a ton of reading comprehension short.  I'm saying that it the Pope's position, and I'm challenging people to refute it logically and consistently, instead of poorly.  

Work, really work, on that English comprehension.  It will provide benefits you can't even dream of.

Quote from: soulguard

I did not downthumb you Icterus, but maybe you could put something more humble in your signature other than praise of yourself. Look at the long prayer in my signature, I wrote that myself and I ever write things like this as a hobby. When i get tempted I can read my own writings and inspire myself towards holiness by reminding me of my occasional zeal. Just a kind piece of advice from someone who is not perfect, but who will be made perfect in Christ Jesus if I have anything to do with it.

...said the humorless Pharisee to the publican.  

Quote from: soulguard

when I went to the SSPX mass this sunday, I tell ya, the blessed sacrament never tasted so sweet.

Be careful, sugar can render the matter invalid, and sweet taste would be a reason to suspect invalidity...

Quote

Just out of curiosity, what are you "well informed" in?
Since you have it in your signature I have my curiosity evoked.

No idea.  Cassini posted it, I'm just quoting it to provoke people like you.

Quote

You dont seriously believe that they put sugar on the sacrament at an SSPX church...
I meant spiritually sweet.

You are so blissfully unaware of being hoist by your own petard.  

Quote from: icterus

Quote

You dont seriously believe that they put sugar on the sacrament at an SSPX church...
I meant spiritually sweet.

You are so blissfully unaware of being hoist by your own petard.  

Excuse me???

I am not really bothered by what someone like you will say to me. I am going to the pub now in a minute and there will speak of religion to the godless.

Quote

I am going to the pub now in a minute and there will speak of religion to the godless.

Please, don't.  I don't want them thinking you in some way represent the Catholic Church.  

Quote

Excuse me???

It's from Shakespeare, which is, like, books.  So.  

Quote

Btw, Fr. Fortescue does say the CANON remained unchanged so I guess the 1962 Mass may not be included in his statement.

Way to hide a complete capitulation in the text of a quick little note as you breeze by.

So, the '62 is not included in those missals which avoid the wrath of the Saints called down by Pope Pius V.

Fascinating.


Somehow, I suspect that (like Cassini's claim the Exsultet is Satanic) this will be studiously ignored by everyone.  

SJB wrote:

Quote

And your point is what, icterus?

As usual, your reading skills appear to be lacking.

The pithy comment "The Latin Mass has been trending for 2,000 years" (or something close to it) was made (which I think is pretty cute) and I simply corrected it to 'about 1,700'.  The other posted asked me to clarify, and we have been discussing.  

That's all.  It's a side topic in a discussion about Pope Francis.  I can see how a topic within a topic would probably blow all of your mental fuses.  

Quote

It is true that the Church does not say that the Mass has to be celebrated everywhere in Latin. She has had any number of valid Masses in the vernacular: Slavonic (Glagolitic), Ukrainian, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic etc. Even though the Mass is celebrated in many places in the vernacular, the vernacular is NOT the norm. The norm is established by the Church.  And the Roman Church decided long before Trent that the language of the rite in the churches in the territories specifically belonging to the Patriarch of the West (the Roman Pontiff) was not the vernacular but Latin.

Yeah.  I know.  Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension..your typing skills are obviously fine.

Quote

Deviation from this in a widespread manner is a novelty, not a return to antiquity, as some will have us believe.

SJB, you have your cranium so far in your own duodenum that you aren't following any of the discussions taking place.  I'm not arguing for the vernacular.  As you and the rest of the slack-jawed idiots seem eternally destined to keep forgetting, I'm a TLM'er.  

Apparently, calling for honest argumentation that has rigor is far too complicated and nuanced a position for you to understand, and when your fuses blow, all you can come back to us 'Ugh, Icterus Bad.  Icterus bad so he must like the Novus Ordo.  Novus Ordo Bad!  Icterus Bad!  Icterus bad heretic!" and so forth.

 

Nah.  I've been on SJB for his inability to read for months now.  Perhaps you suffer the same condition?

Quote

I notice nobody is saying anything about the serious attitude problem that Icterus has.
Seriously, what an asshole.

I'd get a language warning for that.

Quote

I rebuked him yesterday for calling someone an idiot. I quoted the Gospel where Jesus warned that you could go to hell for calling another man a fool.

And I made note of the fact that I have been called fool here many, many times (and much worse, see above) and no one else get condemned except me (Icterus bad!  Icterus modernist!  Ugh!), so beam, meet eye.

Quote

Why would you "correct" such a thing, when you know exactly what is meant?

Because, dearest SJB who knows not ever of what you speak, there is a strain of thought in Catholic Traditionalism once popularized by followers of Fr. Gruner which stated that Jesus taught the Mass in Latin, essentially as it was at the time of Trent, to the Apostles between the Resurrection and the Ascension.  

That is nuttiness.  An informed Catholic knows that the Mass took several hundred years (of well-known and attested ecclesial history) to reach that form.  And, anyone should know about at least the Gregorian reforms.  

So, it's another crackpot notion which is out there, Cathinfo seems like exactly the kind of place it would pop up, and so I spoke out about it.  

As is my privilege until Matthew decides otherwise.  

Nah, I don't report people.  Personally, I don't have a problem with harsh language, but I don't run the zoo here.  

Quote

He ought to apologize to everyone he has slighted and then go to confession and confess his mockery of others to a priest.

As I've noted before, I've been threatened with actual bodily harm by a few of the worst nutcases on here, and one grand-high-poohbah idiot told me he'd actually kill me on sight, because he and I took differing paths to reconcile how scripture describes the hare as a ruminant.

So go sell your crap somewhere else.  I'm responsible for my own sins, but good gravy, I'm not the problem here.  You nutters are.

SJB wrote:

Quote

Icterus, you do have an attitude problem. You are implying pretty much everybody is a "nutter" who disagrees with you in the areas where you feel you are superior.

Tell you what, as soon as you seen me threaten another person's life, call me on it and I'll admit I'm the same as you nutters.  'til then, no thanks.  BTW, yes,I'm lumping everyone who watched that go down and posted nothing in response about the sanity of it in the same batch.  Bunch of nutters.

Memento wrote:

Quote

No dear, you may think he's got our number but that is only your misguided opinion.  

We're talking about the internal thoughts and attitudes of one man.  Of course it's my opinion.  Anything you write about it is your opinion.  Duh.  

Quote

Traditional Catholics' aim is to live in Christ. Our reference is Christo-centric.  Our worship, familial and social lives, understanding of history and philosophy all center on our love of God and His creation. We strive to live our short lives in Him so that we end up with Him in heaven.  

Oy, vey.  Are you sure you aren't a robot?

Okay, let me explain it to you in small words.  The above may well be true.  We are talking about Francis.  What do I think his attitude toward Traditionalism is?  That the above is not true.  

What do I think his intention toward Traditionalism is?  To demonstrate to the world that the above is not true.

Do I think he is capable of this?  Yes.

Why?  Because he's smart.

Why do I think he is smart about it?  Because he hits Traditionalism where it hurts.

What do I mean?  He marginalizes Tradition at every opportunity, alternately identifying it as a meaningless affectation (the JPII diagnosis) or as a dangeous ideology.

Which of these two bothers me more?  The 'dangerous ideology' one.

Why?  Because the world has always accused Traditionalism of arrogance, and diagnosed the Trad refusal to submit to VII and modern innovations as born of pride.  Francis is really pushing this diagnosis, even coining a technical-sounding term 'self-referentialism' to describe it.

And why is this dangerous?  Because, when Trads fail, when they sin, when they fall prey to the snares the devil leaves for them, this is exactly how the fail, by making themselves an authority over the Church.  

Man, Francis knows where to hit.  I'm serious.  

Quote

Charity is the key, and it is based on Our Lord's commandment to love God with our whole hearts, souls and minds and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Many of us fall short of the mark but that is the target.  

I would not call that a problem.

Fine.  Maybe you are right.  Maybe Francis will do no damage.  I disagree.  I think he will do tremendous damage, because I think he will try to turn everyone against Traditionalism as an act of loyalty to the Church.  This is new for the Papacy, IMO.

Quote

The above is precisely why I said what I said. All of those who don't agree with you or don't pay particular attention to you are just "nutters."

All those who subscribe to nutty conspiracy theories are nutters.  All those who do nutty things are nutters.  All those who, for instance, think it is a reasonable thing to, say, threaten someone with murder for taking a slightly different approach to reconciling why Deuteronomy calls a hare a ruminant when it has no rumen, are definitely nutters.

Quote

If that is why you are here, why is it that such a large proportion of your posts consist of nothing more than frustrated, childish ranting about "nutters"?

Because the nutters afflict me.  You are among them.  Why do so many of your posts concern me?  

I have about a half-dozen male posters on here who have some sort of fascination with me.  I'll not go into the possible reasons why, but I'll tell you right now - I'm straight, and I have no interest in you romantically.  I'm married.  

So, I have been talking about encyclicals on the study of all of sacred scripture.

At the risk of just engaging some craziness from you...what are you asking for?  

Yes, it makes sense, but I don't see any mandate in any Papal teaching I've referenced for treating the first 11 chapters of Genesis differently.  

So, I'm worried that your question is just concealing some bizarre agenda which will hopelessly derail any discussion.  

So, here's the point:

If the Popes say 'Hyperbole exists in scripture' and we encounter a verse that not only seem hyperbolic because it does not conform to what we know about the world then it would seem, on the plain face of these encyclicals, that we would:

1.Not be obliged to accept an unreasonable literal reading since it is unreasonable.

2.Look for evidence of hyperbole or idiom or figurative language to explain it.

3.Look to the study of 'languages of the East' to illuminate our thought.


So, when we read in Genesis 5:32 that Noah was 500 years old, what do we do?

According to this almost century-wide arc of Papal teaching, we:

1.Recognize that, since people don't live 500 years, we may not be dealing with a literal passage.

2.See immediately that hyperbole could be an answer.

3.Consult near-East study to see that many contemporaneous cultures in the Near East ascribed spans of life to heroic figures commensurate with great respect.  If a man was greatly respected in the ancient near East, he was ascribed a life centuries long.  

Ergo, according to this Papal teaching, a Catholic is not obliged to necessarily believe that Noah lived to be 500 years old.  Rather, a Catholic may believe that he lived a life of human span, and that Moses or his scribes followed the very common Near East practice.


That's an example.

Quote

Are you saying, also, that Genesis 1 and 2 are not to be taken in a literal/historical sense?

I guess we have to go through more examples first as I lead you by the nose.  I might have time for one or two tomorrow before my trip.

This is his signature, full of laudatory self praise.

.........................
"God you are well informed icterius." - Cassini, 2/16/2014

"I hate to have to write it but icterus is right" - Cuthbert, 2/16/2014
.

Be sure to get Ladislaus' opinion, he may still want to actually murder me, and such an opinion is bound to be valuable to the group.

Now, now.  Not murder, but a fair and square duel. LOL

I suggest Matthew read these posts by Icterus and see how he despises the Catholics on this forum and how he presumes to abuse them. He constantly attempts to provoke an emotional reaction from others with his insults, and therefore meets the very definition of TROLL.

I strongly suspect that he is an infiltrator from some atheist website.
 :devil2:

Quote from: icterus

Quote

The pre-1962 traditional Mass is still the same as St. Pius V's.

But your book page say 'later revisions are of slight importance'.  So, there were later revisions.  Why are they of slight importance?  That's essentially what Francis is saying about changing missals.  Provide some sort of reason for what you think.

Quote from: icterus

Or, in other words 'because I say so, bye'.

Par for the course.

Quote from: icterus

SJB wrote:

Quote

I think Fr. Adrian Fortescue was quoted, not "because I said so."

As usual, you don't know what's going on.  You have a real talent for that.

I questioned why Fr. Fortescue can blithely say changes are insignificant and a poster can blithely cite him as an authority on that without offering any real argumentation.  If the Pope calls down the vengeance of heaven for any changes, the one thing you cannot then do in debate is say 'well, any changes that were made are not significant'.  That's dodging the issue and dishonest.  

Quote from: icterus

SJB said:

Quote

Nobody denies this but icterus is wrongly implying the NOM is somehow just another change in the Roman Missal.

No, SJB, as usual you are a day late and a ton of reading comprehension short.  I'm saying that it the Pope's position, and I'm challenging people to refute it logically and consistently, instead of poorly.  

Work, really work, on that English comprehension.  It will provide benefits you can't even dream of.

Quote from: icterus

Quote from: soulguard

I did not downthumb you Icterus, but maybe you could put something more humble in your signature other than praise of yourself. Look at the long prayer in my signature, I wrote that myself and I ever write things like this as a hobby. When i get tempted I can read my own writings and inspire myself towards holiness by reminding me of my occasional zeal. Just a kind piece of advice from someone who is not perfect, but who will be made perfect in Christ Jesus if I have anything to do with it.

...said the humorless Pharisee to the publican.  

Quote from: icterus

Quote from: soulguard

when I went to the SSPX mass this sunday, I tell ya, the blessed sacrament never tasted so sweet.

Be careful, sugar can render the matter invalid, and sweet taste would be a reason to suspect invalidity...

Quote from: icterus

Quote

Just out of curiosity, what are you "well informed" in?
Since you have it in your signature I have my curiosity evoked.

No idea.  Cassini posted it, I'm just quoting it to provoke people like you.

Quote from: icterus

Quote

You dont seriously believe that they put sugar on the sacrament at an SSPX church...
I meant spiritually sweet.

You are so blissfully unaware of being hoist by your own petard.  

Quote from: soulguard

Quote from: icterus

Quote

You dont seriously believe that they put sugar on the sacrament at an SSPX church...
I meant spiritually sweet.

You are so blissfully unaware of being hoist by your own petard.  

Excuse me???

I am not really bothered by what someone like you will say to me. I am going to the pub now in a minute and there will speak of religion to the godless.

Quote from: icterus

Quote

I am going to the pub now in a minute and there will speak of religion to the godless.

Please, don't.  I don't want them thinking you in some way represent the Catholic Church.  

Quote from: icterus

Quote

Excuse me???

It's from Shakespeare, which is, like, books.  So.  

Quote from: icterus

Quote

Btw, Fr. Fortescue does say the CANON remained unchanged so I guess the 1962 Mass may not be included in his statement.

Way to hide a complete capitulation in the text of a quick little note as you breeze by.

So, the '62 is not included in those missals which avoid the wrath of the Saints called down by Pope Pius V.

Fascinating.


Somehow, I suspect that (like Cassini's claim the Exsultet is Satanic) this will be studiously ignored by everyone.  

Quote from: icterus

SJB wrote:

Quote

And your point is what, icterus?

As usual, your reading skills appear to be lacking.

The pithy comment "The Latin Mass has been trending for 2,000 years" (or something close to it) was made (which I think is pretty cute) and I simply corrected it to 'about 1,700'.  The other posted asked me to clarify, and we have been discussing.  

That's all.  It's a side topic in a discussion about Pope Francis.  I can see how a topic within a topic would probably blow all of your mental fuses.  

Quote

It is true that the Church does not say that the Mass has to be celebrated everywhere in Latin. She has had any number of valid Masses in the vernacular: Slavonic (Glagolitic), Ukrainian, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic etc. Even though the Mass is celebrated in many places in the vernacular, the vernacular is NOT the norm. The norm is established by the Church.  And the Roman Church decided long before Trent that the language of the rite in the churches in the territories specifically belonging to the Patriarch of the West (the Roman Pontiff) was not the vernacular but Latin.

Yeah.  I know.  Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension..your typing skills are obviously fine.

Quote

Deviation from this in a widespread manner is a novelty, not a return to antiquity, as some will have us believe.

SJB, you have your cranium so far in your own duodenum that you aren't following any of the discussions taking place.  I'm not arguing for the vernacular.  As you and the rest of the slack-jawed idiots seem eternally destined to keep forgetting, I'm a TLM'er.  

Apparently, calling for honest argumentation that has rigor is far too complicated and nuanced a position for you to understand, and when your fuses blow, all you can come back to us 'Ugh, Icterus Bad.  Icterus bad so he must like the Novus Ordo.  Novus Ordo Bad!  Icterus Bad!  Icterus bad heretic!" and so forth.

 

Quote from: icterus

Nah.  I've been on SJB for his inability to read for months now.  Perhaps you suffer the same condition?

Quote from: icterus

Quote

I notice nobody is saying anything about the serious attitude problem that Icterus has.
Seriously, what an asshole.

I'd get a language warning for that.

Quote

I rebuked him yesterday for calling someone an idiot. I quoted the Gospel where Jesus warned that you could go to hell for calling another man a fool.

And I made note of the fact that I have been called fool here many, many times (and much worse, see above) and no one else get condemned except me (Icterus bad!  Icterus modernist!  Ugh!), so beam, meet eye.

Quote from: icterus

Quote

Why would you "correct" such a thing, when you know exactly what is meant?

Because, dearest SJB who knows not ever of what you speak, there is a strain of thought in Catholic Traditionalism once popularized by followers of Fr. Gruner which stated that Jesus taught the Mass in Latin, essentially as it was at the time of Trent, to the Apostles between the Resurrection and the Ascension.  

That is nuttiness.  An informed Catholic knows that the Mass took several hundred years (of well-known and attested ecclesial history) to reach that form.  And, anyone should know about at least the Gregorian reforms.  

So, it's another crackpot notion which is out there, Cathinfo seems like exactly the kind of place it would pop up, and so I spoke out about it.  

As is my privilege until Matthew decides otherwise.  

Quote from: icterus

Nah, I don't report people.  Personally, I don't have a problem with harsh language, but I don't run the zoo here.  

Quote from: icterus

Quote

He ought to apologize to everyone he has slighted and then go to confession and confess his mockery of others to a priest.

As I've noted before, I've been threatened with actual bodily harm by a few of the worst nutcases on here, and one grand-high-poohbah idiot told me he'd actually kill me on sight, because he and I took differing paths to reconcile how scripture describes the hare as a ruminant.

So go sell your crap somewhere else.  I'm responsible for my own sins, but good gravy, I'm not the problem here.  You nutters are.

Quote from: icterus

SJB wrote:

Quote

Icterus, you do have an attitude problem. You are implying pretty much everybody is a "nutter" who disagrees with you in the areas where you feel you are superior.

Tell you what, as soon as you seen me threaten another person's life, call me on it and I'll admit I'm the same as you nutters.  'til then, no thanks.  BTW, yes,I'm lumping everyone who watched that go down and posted nothing in response about the sanity of it in the same batch.  Bunch of nutters.

Memento wrote:

Quote

No dear, you may think he's got our number but that is only your misguided opinion.  

We're talking about the internal thoughts and attitudes of one man.  Of course it's my opinion.  Anything you write about it is your opinion.  Duh.  

Quote

Traditional Catholics' aim is to live in Christ. Our reference is Christo-centric.  Our worship, familial and social lives, understanding of history and philosophy all center on our love of God and His creation. We strive to live our short lives in Him so that we end up with Him in heaven.  

Oy, vey.  Are you sure you aren't a robot?

Okay, let me explain it to you in small words.  The above may well be true.  We are talking about Francis.  What do I think his attitude toward Traditionalism is?  That the above is not true.  

What do I think his intention toward Traditionalism is?  To demonstrate to the world that the above is not true.

Do I think he is capable of this?  Yes.

Why?  Because he's smart.

Why do I think he is smart about it?  Because he hits Traditionalism where it hurts.

What do I mean?  He marginalizes Tradition at every opportunity, alternately identifying it as a meaningless affectation (the JPII diagnosis) or as a dangeous ideology.

Which of these two bothers me more?  The 'dangerous ideology' one.

Why?  Because the world has always accused Traditionalism of arrogance, and diagnosed the Trad refusal to submit to VII and modern innovations as born of pride.  Francis is really pushing this diagnosis, even coining a technical-sounding term 'self-referentialism' to describe it.

And why is this dangerous?  Because, when Trads fail, when they sin, when they fall prey to the snares the devil leaves for them, this is exactly how the fail, by making themselves an authority over the Church.  

Man, Francis knows where to hit.  I'm serious.  

Quote

Charity is the key, and it is based on Our Lord's commandment to love God with our whole hearts, souls and minds and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Many of us fall short of the mark but that is the target.  

I would not call that a problem.

Fine.  Maybe you are right.  Maybe Francis will do no damage.  I disagree.  I think he will do tremendous damage, because I think he will try to turn everyone against Traditionalism as an act of loyalty to the Church.  This is new for the Papacy, IMO.

Quote from: icterus

Quote

The above is precisely why I said what I said. All of those who don't agree with you or don't pay particular attention to you are just "nutters."

All those who subscribe to nutty conspiracy theories are nutters.  All those who do nutty things are nutters.  All those who, for instance, think it is a reasonable thing to, say, threaten someone with murder for taking a slightly different approach to reconciling why Deuteronomy calls a hare a ruminant when it has no rumen, are definitely nutters.

Quote from: icterus

Quote

If that is why you are here, why is it that such a large proportion of your posts consist of nothing more than frustrated, childish ranting about "nutters"?

Because the nutters afflict me.  You are among them.  Why do so many of your posts concern me?  

I have about a half-dozen male posters on here who have some sort of fascination with me.  I'll not go into the possible reasons why, but I'll tell you right now - I'm straight, and I have no interest in you romantically.  I'm married.  

Quote from: icterus

So, I have been talking about encyclicals on the study of all of sacred scripture.

At the risk of just engaging some craziness from you...what are you asking for?  

Quote from: icterus

Yes, it makes sense, but I don't see any mandate in any Papal teaching I've referenced for treating the first 11 chapters of Genesis differently.  

So, I'm worried that your question is just concealing some bizarre agenda which will hopelessly derail any discussion.  

So, here's the point:

If the Popes say 'Hyperbole exists in scripture' and we encounter a verse that not only seem hyperbolic because it does not conform to what we know about the world then it would seem, on the plain face of these encyclicals, that we would:

1.Not be obliged to accept an unreasonable literal reading since it is unreasonable.

2.Look for evidence of hyperbole or idiom or figurative language to explain it.

3.Look to the study of 'languages of the East' to illuminate our thought.


So, when we read in Genesis 5:32 that Noah was 500 years old, what do we do?

According to this almost century-wide arc of Papal teaching, we:

1.Recognize that, since people don't live 500 years, we may not be dealing with a literal passage.

2.See immediately that hyperbole could be an answer.

3.Consult near-East study to see that many contemporaneous cultures in the Near East ascribed spans of life to heroic figures commensurate with great respect.  If a man was greatly respected in the ancient near East, he was ascribed a life centuries long.  

Ergo, according to this Papal teaching, a Catholic is not obliged to necessarily believe that Noah lived to be 500 years old.  Rather, a Catholic may believe that he lived a life of human span, and that Moses or his scribes followed the very common Near East practice.


That's an example.

Quote from: icterus

Quote

Are you saying, also, that Genesis 1 and 2 are not to be taken in a literal/historical sense?

I guess we have to go through more examples first as I lead you by the nose.  I might have time for one or two tomorrow before my trip.

This is his signature, full of laudatory self praise.

Quote from: icterus

.........................
"God you are well informed icterius." - Cassini, 2/16/2014

"I hate to have to write it but icterus is right" - Cuthbert, 2/16/2014
.

Oh man, I just wanted to make sure this was posted again.  Somebody went to  a lot of trouble to collect my greatest hits.  

Matthew, for what it's worth, here are my .02
From time to time I "hiatus" from the forum due to duties and obligations that don't permit me the time to read it as much as I would like.
Inevibably when I return to catch up, there's an "icterus", baiting and insulting with lots of sarcasm.   I observe some good forum members losing their temper in frustration, which indicates these troll types are an occasion of sin.

After perusing the latest troll's posts, it's the same old forumula  - so now I just skip his commentary, and I encourage those who see the un Catholic technique to do the same.  Just don't read the comments and don't engage. It's really that simple.

However, it may be in the forum's interest to investigate a troublemaker.  The alias cleverly suggests a duality.

Chaos is not sewn by the hand of God.  

Stop wasting your time with nonsense. Find something productive to do.

If its bad, the forum owner takes care of it.

Personally, I think threads that are nothing more than complaints about CI or specific members should result in a ban of the complainer.  Of course, I am not the moderator, so I leave these type of decisions to Matthew.