Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Raoul76 on September 25, 2011, 02:08:53 AM
-
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.
-
Accusing others of having a bad will for disagreeing with you is also very sinful.
-
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.
Exactly.
-
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. :laugh1:
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 one attempts to argue with someone and is struck by the stonewalling and the recurring patterns of evasion (as well as the general tone of nastiness masked as condescension), it doesn't surprise me that they shout "calumny" when it's pointed out. It reminds me of a Jew crying antisemitism.
-
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.
Not only did you ignore his polite request to refrain from commenting, your unquiet minds found it appropriate to attack him!
THIS is the fruits of Traditional Catholicism? Excuse me while I locate my local Novus Ordo church...
(I'm kidding! But some visitors to this site might say the same thing, and NOT be kidding.)
Come on, can't we be as decent as Novus Ordo Catholics, or the non-religious/pagans we live among?
You can argue and disagree with Raoul all you like. But let's maintain a sense of decency and decorum here -- there's a time and a place for everything.
-
Nice of everyone to attack Raoul in a thread of this nature.
Everyone attacked Raoul? Where?
-
Since Matthew brought it up, I would like to point out that making reparation doesn't consist in a perfunctory apology without comment. It consists of taking steps to make amends and reconcile, which invariably means that there will be further discussion.
-
Unquiet minds? Helping a man examine his conscience who expresses it in public isn't "attacking" him.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Speaking of the thumbs-down that I gave you, it was because you posted what you did WHERE you did.
I wouldn't like to see more of those kind of posts in the future, so I voted accordingly.
To turn an apology thread into a "Let's list all Raoul's faults" thread is tacky at best and uncharitable/sinful at worst.
-
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.
-
It would have been less adversarial (savoring of "wrangling") if you had made such a fraternal correction via PM.
Isn't that the advice Our Lord gave us? He specifically outlined the steps we should take in fraternal correction.
We are to correct our brother IN THIS ORDER, only moving to the next step if a given step fails to bring results.
1. Correct him privately.
2. Correct him in the presence of a couple of witnesses.
3. Tell the Church (maybe this is where posts on public fora would come in...)
And then, if he still doesn't correct himself, we are to treat him as the heathen and publican -- that is, with fraternal charity but we should be careful how much we hang around him lest he influence us for the worse: "Bad company corrupts good manners." (1 Cor 15:33)
But to wrangle with someone for weeks and months, losing peace of soul as a result? That was never recommended.
-
What would the saints do, honestly?
If a man repented of 8 sins, but was still guilty of a ninth -- wouldn't a saint react with some level of optimism and joy, and gently and carefully let the sinner know (privately) of the ninth sin he hadn't repented of?
A quote about honey and vinegar comes to mind...
-
Sorry, Raoul --
I'm going to lock this thread, since it's hopelessly off course.
I recommend you copy & paste the original text into a new post -- I'll write some kind of "warning" below it, in an attempt to ward off this kind of thing from happening again. I'll recommend members to downvote any responses. Hopefully my influence will have some effect.
I am very confident about the righteousness of what I'm doing here.
Maybe it's too little, too late -- but sometimes the lack of charity and tact on this forum gets to me.
And yes, I'm doing this for Raoul, who is no fan of the SSPX. But right is right, and wrong is wrong. I don't care who they are. God forbid I should ever start letting human respect cloud my judgment.