Lepanto Again is banned from CathInfo.

Apparently I didn't notice until now, that he had a "Luther" moment (recall that Martin Luther had a "revelation" -- on the toilet of all places -- that we are justified by Faith alone) wherein he decided that there are no valid priests/hierarchy today.

He is against the SSPX, Resistance, CMRI, and any other Trad group, because he believes they are all flawed.

His website has a complete hit list, slamming each individually. It reads like a "who's who" of the Traditional movement. EVERY SINGLE priest or bishop is considered a layman. Any putative offices (Father, priest, bishop, etc.) are placed in "quotes".

He believes that IF the Church hasn't failed, he sure doesn't know about it. Any Pope or Church that still exists -- he hasn't found it yet (which is typical; you seldom get a dogmatic home-aloner that says "the Church has failed period." They always say, "There might be other Catholics out there -- I just haven't encountered any yet."

In other words, he's a dogmatic Home Aloner.

Schismatic because he cuts himself off from not just ONE part of the Mystical Body of Christ, but from pretty much ALL of it!

Heretical because he believes that the Church has failed, and that the Gates of Hell have LITERALLY prevailed over the Church -- you know, the exact thing that Christ personally promised WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

The Crisis in the Church is already a test of our Faith. The Crisis is really bad enough. It's bad enough we have to scour for a Tridentine Mass whenever we leave our home -- some of us don't even have a regular Tridentine Mass where we live!

To say that ALL Trad groups don't have legitimate priests, etc. is heresy. Period.

He started himself a little website to promote his errors. Links to that foul website are no longer allowed on CathInfo. Like Vatican II, I don't care if his website has some truth here or there. When you get arsenic in your tea, you throw the whole cup out! There are enough websites/resources out there WITHOUT heresy and schism that we can all use for our education and edification.

We should all have a holy revulsion for schism. Just because the enemies of God called the SSPX "schismatic" unjustly doesn't mean that schism is no big deal.

Schism is like taking a scalpel and trying to cut off the innocent and sacred arm of Jesus. It's that horrible! The Mystical Body of Christ must be One. Christ ardently desired this with all His being, and prayed for this explicitly in St. John's Gospel. How many things did Christ explicitly pray for in the Gospels?

Nothing is coincidental.
I was having an interesting conversation with an older, "EWTN conservative" (novus ordo) priest on Saturday.  We ventured into a discussion of the crisis, of course.  He asked me if I've heard of home aloners.  He was very pained when he mentioned it, and went on to describe these "poor souls", as he repeatedly called them, who are so confused due to satan's chaos.  He equated it to the Reformation, as you did Matthew.
His tone and facial expression has haunted me. He sincerely grieved for these "poor souls seduced by hopelessness and half truths".
As we parted he said "please pray for these poor souls especially", with such a loving tone of voice that it brought tears to my eyes.  And I have been.
And I will pray for L.A.  

I didn't know that there were SO MANY "Home Aloners" that even a Novus Ordo priest would be acquainted with the phenomenon.

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Nothing is coincidental.
I was having an interesting conversation with an older, "EWTN conservative" (novus ordo) priest on Saturday.  We ventured into a discussion of the crisis, of course.  He asked me if I've heard of home aloners.  He was very pained when he mentioned it, and went on to describe these "poor souls", as he repeatedly called them, who are so confused due to satan's chaos.  He equated it to the Reformation, as you did Matthew.
His tone and facial expression has haunted me. He sincerely grieved for these "poor souls seduced by hopelessness and half truths".
As we parted he said "please pray for these poor souls especially", with such a loving tone of voice that it brought tears to my eyes.  And I have been.
And I will pray for L.A.  

I didn't know that there were SO MANY "Home Aloners" that even a Novus Ordo priest would be acquainted with the phenomenon.

The Novus Ordo has much more home aloners than the Traditionalists.  However, the novus ordite priest would consider the empty pews to be where the home aloners used to sit so he probably has a different definition that us here.

What surprised me is that the novus ordite priest acknowledged any sort of crisis at all.  Most of them will glibly spout indifferentism and quote Vatican II docuмents to back it up.
   

What surprised me is that the novus ordite priest acknowledged any sort of crisis at all.  Most of them will glibly spout indifferentism and quote Vatican II docuмents to back it up.
   

I think the conservative Novus Ordo priests know and believe there is a crisis. In their seminary days they were persecuted while the fαɢs and the modernists were given free reign. They know that most of the hierarchy has lost the faith. They know about the crisis of pedophilia among the many gαy-priests. They realize that the pews are getting empty and there are few or no vocations anymore. They just don't understand that the cause of the crisis was the abandoning of the faith during and after Vatican II and its implementation.

I think the conservative Novus Ordo priests know and believe there is a crisis. In their seminary days they were persecuted while the fαɢs and the modernists were given free rein. They know that most of the hierarchy has lost the faith. They know about the crisis of pedophilia among the many gαy priests. They realize that the pews are getting empty and there are few or no vocations anymore. They just don't understand that the cause of the crisis was the abandoning of the faith during and after Vatican II and its implementation.

Well remarked, Matto! I wish every commenter were half as observant as you.

In one respect, I'd go a little bit farther than you and suggest that some NO priests—just how many I couldn't say—have awakened to the fact that the disaster was caused by "Vatican II and its implementation." Doubtless some of those priests have failed to embrace Traditionalism out of fear or a conformist spirit, but surely others have simply failed so far to find something or someone they truly trust, someone who will help them see that "staying the course," their utterly fruitless course, has ceased to be either sensible or salutary.

In terms of catechesis, for at least the past sixty years the kind of training that most of those with nascent vocations have gotten has ranged from the defective to the poisonous. In terms of the Parable of the Sower and the Seed, it's as if they landed on the roadside, on the rocks, or among the brambles not by accident but by deliberate intent—the warped intent of postconciliar prelates. The ones who are still struggling to keep and pass on the Faith, however poorly they may grasp it, deserve our prayers and encouragement (albeit not our applause).
_________________

With Lepanto Again sent packing, the message from HQ seems to be that we can now all rest safe and secure in our homes and beds. My skepticism on that score remains undented, however. I think the gentleman failed to understand the bulk of what he considered evidence for his disordered position, but in practical terms I consider most of his comments far less scandalous than those of the dozens of set-in-stone doctrinaire sedevacantists and Feeneyites who tend to get pampered-lapdog-quality tolerance, even deference, hereabouts no matter how much harm they do to the carpets and furniture of the Faith.

Matt, I have a question about your recent action.

Quote from: Matthew

His website has a complete hit list, slamming each individually. It reads like a "who's who" of the Traditional movement. EVERY SINGLE priest or bishop is considered a layman. Any putative offices (Father, priest, bishop, etc.) are placed in "quotes".

Does this mean that our membership here depends on both our conduct here, as well as what we say on our own blogs?

At Te Deum, for example, it seems that they don't care about what I say at my home base.  Most there already know my stance on the sedes, and since most there are sympathetic with sedes, I am not to bring the topic up.  

Short answer: Of course it does.

I'm not going to intentionally ignore any data when I decide if someone should be banned.

If someone is running  "HomeAloner.com" or "ThereAreNoValidPriests.com" and it comes to my attention, of course that will be considered in my decision making process.

Or if someone types up a huge rant against me personally and posts it on his blog or another forum -- and I get wind of it -- of course I'm going to take it into account.

I'm not a computer. I make my decisions like a human being. We're not going to have some kind of fake "I know you just watched me murder a man in cold blood, but we're in international waters and I have diplomatic immunity, so you can't touch me."

That kind of situation makes a good plot device in movies, but it's not going to happen here.

But I'm not going to necessarily scrutinize every text in the world, or treat every line ever written like it's a CathInfo post.

Furthermore, I'm not Fr. Rostand and I don't have time to spy on people, track them down, or try to link accounts on various forums to each other, or to actual identities IRL. I have a thousand better things to do.

I hope this answers your question.

I'm not a computer. I make my decisions like a human being. We're not going to have some kind of fake "I know you just watched me murder a man in cold blood, but we're in international waters and I have diplomatic immunity, so you can't touch me."

What a great analogy.

I'll have to remember that one. :cool: