He was a member here for a while, so he deserves an explanation why he's been banned from CathInfo.

CathInfo is a forum for Traditional Catholics. That is to say, those who support the Traditional Catholic movement. There are several groups that are considered "Traditional Catholic", and you are free to pick one, but you must pick one.

The Traditional Catholic movement is not optional, any more than saving our souls is optional. I recently wrote a long post about this.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/aloof-from-the-entire-traditional-catholic-world/

Wessex is a classic case of cursing the darkness, while endeavoring to blow out everyone else's candle. He is an endless source of negativity as of late, but he hasn't been like this from the beginning, or this ban would have happened long ago. I gave him a lot of latitude for the sake of his long past here on CI.

CathInfo is not a catch-all for all malcontents or those who merely hate the modern-day Catholic Church (as they understand it) or more accurately the Conciliar Church. That is not enough to make you a Traditional Catholic.

Waiting endlessly for the REAL Traditional Catholic movement to begin, after these 50 years, means that you are NOT a Traditional Catholic. Do you see the blasphemy in this position? Wessex claims that God hasn't risen up ANY means (individuals, small groups, etc.) to help Catholics keep the Faith and raise our children Catholic during this long Crisis in the Church. Wessex basically says to God, "Thanks for nothing!"

In the deluded and warped mind of Wessex, there are no lifeboats, no means to stay afloat even for the fervent souls: men of good will, seeking the truth, putting their Faith first, willing to make sacrifices to keep the Faith. No, even for such fervent souls it's basically hopeless. Like the modern-day Jєω still waiting for the "Messiah", they wait and wait, wondering if God is truly faithful to His promises, and becoming more negative and bitter by the day.

I understand that not everyone has the same priorities when dealing with this crisis, and we are all individuals, so there are going to be disagreements, different groups catering to different priorities/positions, etc. That is understandable and I don't have a problem with that.

But anyone who can throw ALL OF THE ABOVE -- the SSPX, FSSP, ICK, SSPV, CMRI, the Resistance, all independent chapels, and every other group within the Traditional Catholic world -- into the dustbin is no Traditional Catholic.

There are plenty of neo-pagans and agnostics that are against the Conciliar Church too -- they aren't Traditional Catholic, but they're against what people think is the Catholic Church today. Same with the Old Catholics. They are against the modern-day Catholic Church too. Shall we invite them to CathInfo or give them an honorary "Traditional Catholic" label, since we both have a common enemy? Of course not!

That Wessex is critical of sspx, and the traditional Catholic movement in general is pretty clear from much of his own commentary.  Alas many of us feel similarly.  But has he ever indicated that he is not a traditional Catholic?  I don't recall that he has admitted to having  abandoned Catholicism altogether, specifically traditional Catholicism.  Nor do I recall that he has ever said that he no longer attends a traditional Mass center, or that he does not recognize any of these "several groups."  We ourselves attend an independent traditional venue under the auspices of an old diocesan priest.  Would Matthew include such an arrangement as legitimately included among his "several groups?"
This new ban rather troubles me.

If this is a forum for traditional Catholics who support the traditional Catholic movement and you're banning those you believe don't fit the bill, then why are these men banned and not Poche? He's not even traditional Catholic.

For those who are still looking into Traditional Catholicism but who have not yet found a chapel or priest whom they can trust, this new rule can be a problem. People who have been severely traumatized by Novus Ordo modernistic and/or perverted priests need more time to discern, to find a priest, and to feel at home.

Perhaps there can be a category called inquirers.

By the way, I was confirmed in 1960 before the new rite was introduced. However, for those confirmed with yucca oil in 1996 instead of Holy Chrism, are they given the opportunity to be confirmed anew according to the apostolic traditional rite? Does CMRI, SSPX, or the Resistance Priests offer this sacrament for those transferring from Novus Ordo parishes?

And what is ICK? What an awful initial?

Matthew, I ran out of time to edit. Is ICK a valid traditional movement or was this just an awful accidental misspelling?

It stands for Institute of Christ the King- Sovereign Priest
Abbreviated ICKSP
Or ICK for even shorter colloquial language.  

I know from personal experience that the Resistance Bishops will conditionally confirm in the Traditional Rite, The SSPX will not just based on a doubt of a NO confirmation.

That Wessex is critical of sspx, and the traditional Catholic movement in general is pretty clear from much of his own commentary.  Alas many of us feel similarly.  But has he ever indicated that he is not a traditional Catholic?  I don't recall that he has admitted to having  abandoned Catholicism altogether, specifically traditional Catholicism.  Nor do I recall that he has ever said that he no longer attends a traditional Mass center, or that he does not recognize any of these "several groups."  We ourselves attend an independent traditional venue under the auspices of an old diocesan priest.  Would Matthew include such an arrangement as legitimately included among his "several groups?"
This new ban rather troubles me.

Agreed.  Given I am a sedevacantist, I recognize that my opinion doesn't mean all that much when it comes to Matthew's ban of non-R&R posters such as Wessex and JPaul, but I am going on record here that I am totally against the ban of these two posters as well as what appears to be a new rule (although I can't remember the last time official rules were posted on this forum...perhaps it is high time for that, so we all know our boundaries).

Both Wessex and JPaul were overly negative when it comes to the future of Catholicism - but there’s no sin in being cynical.  It’s part of being human.  They were also critical of +ABL and +W, moreso as of late, which is why I suspect they were banned.  But there are PLENTY of other posters who also criticize these bishops, just indirectly, and way more regularly, basically calling them heretics, which Wessex and JPaul never did.  

Regardless of one's opinion of their views, Wessex and JPaul (plus, in a sense, the poster named Croix) all were good members of this site, who may have been overbearing at times, but who brought a lot of intelligence and a different perspective to a variety of topics.  Contrast that to a good portion of the posters here - who argue about petty things, or who don’t post much, or who only concentrate on 1 or 2 topics.  ...I think this site will take some time (and new members) to recover from their absence.  

Lol!

The forum’s “recovery” was facilitated by the banning of those two complainers, who never (ever) had anything positive to contribute.

If Matthew could only lower the boom on that lippy woman (and 2-3 others), the forum could move back away from being the world’s largest ecuмenical gathering site to recovering its identity as the “de facto headquarters of the Resistance.”

But has he ever indicated that he is not a traditional Catholic?  I don't recall that he has admitted to having  abandoned Catholicism altogether, specifically traditional Catholicism.  

When was the last time he indicated that he IS a Traditional Catholic? He might be Catholic, but I don't recall the last time he said anything affirming himself as a Traditional Catholic. Rejecting the Conciliar Church is not the same as supporting Traditional Catholicism.
.
.

Finally. It is not because he is non-R&R. There is something else going on there and that something else is very unhealthy. Hard to describe and put a finger on, nevertheless, noxious.

I agree.