A while ago in confession I mentioned some of the things I'd said on this site, especially pertaining to the time I thought NFP and implicit faith were heresies or near-heresies.  I was told to make reparation, but I kept putting it off.  Anyway, here it is, at long last:

-- I apologize to those who I called heretics but who really weren't, the name that comes to mind right away is Father Martin Stepanich.  Of course, I no longer believe implict faith is a heresy so I think it's self-explanatory that I don't think he's a heretic!

-- I apologize to Father Cekada for suggesting he was being deliberately misleading in one of his essays

-- I apologize to Malachi Martin, or to the memory of Malachi Martin, for whatever I said suggesting that he was a plant or infiltrator of some kind.  While still not being a great fan of his earthly work, at least as far as it is known to me, I can't say anything more than that and don't know his intentions.

-- I apologize to Elizabeth who I once suggested was a witch in one of my more paranoid fits

-- I apologize to Trinity for saying I hope the site would "blackball" her due to an argument involving her concept of America

-- I apologize to the former CMRI nuns who defected to Vatican II for saying or suggesting they were witches who were trying to suck people away from sedevacantism

NOTE:  This isn't a conversation-piece thread, but a requirement given to me by my priest, however delayed.  Let me just ask the site to not reply to any of this, so that I can add to it whenever I feel I've done wrong to someone.  

When someone showing clear signs of arguing in bad faith it is fair game to say that.

Dishonest people don't get a pass.

When someone showing clear signs of arguing in bad faith it is fair game to say that.

Dishonest people don't get a pass.

You clearly don't understand the gravity of the subject and merely beg the question to suit your fancy.  It must be because you have an evil will.  

And what are these "clear signs" that seem to justify such a grave accusation?  I hope it has not a tinge of subjectivism as you are right up there with Mike in accusing everyone and their brother of having a "bad will" precisely because of your subjectivism.  This is a message board, where arguments occur.  Refusing to concede a point isn't a sign of possessing a "bad will" if a sufficient reason is given to either deny or affirm something.  Even if you are correct and the opponent is wrong, the fault could actually lie with you for presenting a defective argument.  This is one of many causes that one ought to consider before they start hurling that annoying, peevish epithet.  So, let's see that list of objective criteria by which you judge another man of possessing an evil will.  But before you delve into this murky water, may I suggest you review what St. Thomas teaches in the Summa regarding sins against Justice.

When we take SSPX arguments to their logical conclusion, what we find is that they reduce to absurdity.  I have no doubt that most SSPX apologists are aware of this in some capacity or another.

When one takes the arguments against stating that someone is a heretic - I see arguments that would make it impossible to ever call someone a heretic no matter what he said or did. (for example when they speak of a "canonical trial" when such a thing is impossible)

And the same thing is true when discussing these modernists.  When the SSPX wants to criticize them, they do not hold themselves to the same rules as others who criticize them.  The sede critic will be accused of asserting what is "impossible" to know.

The absurdity of that is that the SSPX apologists begin contradicting themselves and common sense.  They will sue someone for publishing Bishop Tissier's writings about the "many heresies" of Introduction of Christianity.  They will sue to suppress the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre.

That's not good will.  It needs to be pointed out what they're doing.

Nice of everyone to attack Raoul in a thread of this nature.

Everyone attacked Raoul?  Where?

Unquiet minds?  Helping a man examine his conscience who expresses it in public isn't "attacking" him.  

When someone showing clear signs of arguing in bad faith it is fair game to say that.

Dishonest people don't get a pass.

4 thumbs down on this post and mine for agreeing with this statement and not for a single reason. This is becoming quite typical of people here: thumbing down posts they don't understand and without heart they remain silent. Surely, you can disagree with me if you want, but that isn't really my problem.

I was not attacking Raoul at all. I was simply agreeing with what Telesphorus said: that it is right to assume that those who signs of arguing in bad faith are bad willed and that dishonest people should not get a pass (as it is always their fault for being dishonest). That's not an attack on Raoul at all. If I were interested in attacking Raoul I would have done so a long time ago. In fact, I wasn't even referring to Raoul in agreeing with what Telesphorus said. Tele may hold feelings against Raoul, but I do not feel anything for Raoul as I do not really know him.

If some people here would simply detach themselves from their sentimentality and would actually process posts on this forum as they are written rather than how they might seem to be, there would be no confusion at all.

Unasked-for advice is seldom received graciously.

If you really wanted to just "help him examine his conscience" a PM would have been in order -- but I believe he's done examining his conscience, and is trying to make reparation now.

I'm not Raoul's best friend or anything, but he is a human being and a fellow Catholic. Give the guy a break. An apology thread is NOT the place to publicly post a list of more faults!

That's about as tacky as it gets.

No one is ever done examining his conscience.  Since the topic was public and about "message board sins" I thought it was important to point out another serious sin that he has committed.  Obviously, since he didn't include it on his list, his conscience is still not properly formed or he simply had forgotten.  I'm a human being and a fellow Catholic, give me a break.  And reparation in the form of a post on a message board strikes me as a little tacky anyway, but what do I know.