When Matthew gets done cleaning house maybe it will be safe for me to come back.   :-\

To those who called Matthew a hypocrite for doing what especially Freedom has done.  That is the problem he brings out the worst in people either in thought or in replying back.  That is not a good thing.  

DZ Please and "Catholictrue" have both been banned for insulting the moderator.

I don't know how "Catholictrue" flew under the radar thus far -- he must not have spoken his mind yet. He completely doesn't belong here, or in any other group of Trad Catholics.

:applause: :applause:
Sad but good for you Matthew! 

No, you can't.

I saw Freedom's recent posts, saw that he was a huge fan of the Dimond Bros (MHFM), and decided to ban him.

You're right -- if he's not one of them himself, they have certainly taught him well how to anathematize, lack charity, spew bile, etc.

" [15] Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves."

Men like him make it difficult to want to be (or stay) Catholic. Saints inspire people to convert to the Faith, even if that means hardships in the process. See the difference?

Even though forums are usually "the more the merrier" when it comes to # of members, nevertheless I think CathInfo is overall better-off with one less member in this case.

What's so incredibly bizarre is that I do not believe in Baptism of Desire myself.  I was merely arguing that BoD is NOT heresy.  At one point he called me a heretic for saying that BoD isn't heresy.  So now merely disagreeing with a theological note qualifies as heresy.

No, he's not one of the Dimond Brothers, as the latter are much more intelligent and educated than he is.  I believe that Catholictrue is one of the Dimond Brothers.  I called him Brother at one point and he didn't object; his thinking and his writing style are almost identical to that of MHFM.

Most true "Feeneyites" (and Father Feeney himself) considered the position on Baptism of Desire to be an opinion and would never anathematize those who disagree with them.  We have other problems with regard to Catholic ecclesiology that we consider more substantial and more important.  It's the mix of dogmatic sedevacantism with "Feeneyism" that has yielded the bitter fruits you describe.  On those threads, I laid out the problem with dogmatic anything-ism.  What these guys do is to equate various positions that they have drawn by way of argument (syllogism) FROM dogma with dogma itself, believing that the validity of their logic has the certainty of faith.  As everyone who has studied logic knows, peiorem partem sequitur conclusio (the conclusion is only as strong as the weakest point in the argument); consequently, the INSTANT that human reason starts applying logic to a dogma, the conclusion cannot be dogma because it cannot have the certainty of faith ... not until the Church defines it as such.

When, from time to time, a theological opponent of theirs passes away, they write these articles in which it sounds very much as if they're relishing the (in their opinion) certain eternal damnation of the departed "heretic".  I'm sure that they'll be exulting in the same upon my demise.

I only had to use his 7 most recent pages, when there are 18 more to use. But he was getting more and more bold lately, so those older 18 pages weren't so, how do you say, rich?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that I brought this out in him with the last few pages of posts, especially on that one particular thread.  Then he went after Stubborn for not being a sedevacantist.

In a tragic sort of way (vis-a-vis the condition of his soul), he was in fact rather entertaining.  I was on the edge of my seat waiting for what manner of colorful insult he would come up with next.  And, on a more serious note, he did provide a lesson in what bitter zeal and dogmatism on some matter can do to the mind and the soul.

Yes, yes--the bitter zeal. That's what I just cannot understand about so many of these guys like "Freedom". They leave no room for disagreement, discussion, opinion and good faith. Disagree with them and immediately they call you  a heretic, a simpleton, a liar, a soul in bad faith, etc., and finally this: They condemn you to hell and do it with an almost demonic glee. I know they would disagree with this last part and I can't prove it to be true, but they write in a way that sure sounds as though they are really pleased to see you damned. I wish they would take time off from the polemics and read something spiritual like, maybe, Saint Francis de Sales, and let him teach them about honey and vinegar and flies. If you want somebody to swallow your message you gotta make it taste good, not bitter.

.
If only it were that simple.  These people show signs of a deeper emotional problem, one that would require them to endure an extreme and dangerous experience which surviving would give them the opportunity to outgrow their malicious heart.  But it wouldn't necessarily work out that way.  They still have free will.
.
In any case, I doubt that there ever could be something happening on the Internet that would effect the necessary change of heart.  The Internet isn't capable of accomplishing that. It's all virtual reality.
.
But you have a good point in the reading of good spiritual books. There is something about physical turning of pages in a book that changes the soul, much more so than clicking icons and flipping virtual pages on a computer's display.
.

Yes, yes--the bitter zeal. That's what I just cannot understand about so many of these guys like "Freedom". They leave no room for disagreement, discussion, opinion and good faith. Disagree with them and immediately they call you  a heretic, a simpleton, a liar, a soul in bad faith, etc., and finally this: They condemn you to hell and do it with an almost demonic glee. I know they would disagree with this last part and I can't prove it to be true, but they write in a way that sure sounds as though they are really pleased to see you damned. I wish they would take time off from the polemics and read something spiritual like, maybe, Saint Francis de Sales, and let him teach them about honey and vinegar and flies. If you want somebody to swallow your message you gotta make it taste good, not bitter.

It's worse than that. We're not talking about sugar coating a truth, being polite, being civil, etc.

There's something much more fundamentally wrong with these people than just being "rough", "impolite", "rough around the edges", or "over zealous". We're talking about people swollen with pride, who don't really have the love of God in their souls. 

The proof is that when someone is going to Hell, they don't care. You won't catch one of these types offering up a sacrifice (in secret) to convert a sinner -- you know, like the saints did. No, instead you have more of a power trip, an exercise in vainglory and pride, seeing who is right, tons of emotion, etc.

You could talk about the honey & flies thing with regards to pagan relatives addicted to sinful worldly amusements and lifestyles. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about serious Traditional Catholics who are -- according to all evidence and appearances -- making great sacrifices to keep the Faith and live their lives in accordance with God's law.

Such people you shouldn't have to sugarcoat. They SHOULD be considered your co-religionists (those in the same religion), fellow Catholics, allies against the world, and even friends.

In other words, you're granting too much. These demons of bitter zeal are not dealing with a society of pagans who need conversion, but Traditional Catholics. It's like they are in a different religion or something -- and for most intents and purposes, they are! That's why I call such people cultists. If you consider their religion "MHFM cult" then their behavior will make MUCH more sense than if you consider their religion "Roman Catholic" or "Traditional Catholic".