Request for immediate action

otremer6 wrote:Good, because I'm not closing down the forum because someone's tender sensibilities are wounded.

My kind of moderator!

otremer6 wrote:Good, why don't you stay there?

Thanks,

O6

If Rasha wants me to leave his forum, all that he has to do is ask and/or ban me.

George Brenner wrote:I continue to pray for your Dad.

Thanks, George, and blessings to you and yours!

Don

Jehanne wrote:

otremer6 wrote:Good, why don't you stay there?

Thanks,

O6

If Rasha wants me to leave his forum, all that he has to do is ask and/or ban me.

I mistakenly believed you were threatening people. Now that I know that I was mistaken, I have apologized and we can move on with or without you.

I'm content with you here or not being here, it's entirely up to you at this point.

O6

Jehanne,

I admire your patiance for staying here for so long.
It must have been a mortification.It is something we must go through.
The issue is also related to our Faith, suffering, the Cross and our purpose in life.
We not only at times have to be confronted by evil but sometimes stupid immaturity.
Hang on there and continue the good work.

In Christ
Lionel

Lionel Andrades wrote:Jehanne,

I admire your patiance for staying here for so long.
It must have been a mortification.It is something we must go through.
The issue is also related to our Faith, suffering, the Cross and our purpose in life.
We not only at times have to be confronted by evil but sometimes stupid immaturity.
Hang on there and continue the good work.

In Christ
Lionel

Who are you calling stupid and immature, Lionel?

I am referring to a general immaturity that I have come across since Pascendi, N.6.

Lionel

N.6 why don't you write under your real name ? Are you not confident of the Faith. Or also like others career comes before the Faith.

Lionel,

I think you might mean O6 Lionel?


Everyone on this forum is posting according to the Rule #5, below that says read before signing up, except you and me. In my case I did not read the rules; no excuse plus I was not informed after my first post that I was in error. I was wrong. In my case I did have desire to do the right thing but to you I could never exist. HMMM sounds like another subject you have invented.

Official forum rules:

#5 No posting of information related to you or another forum member's personal identity including but not limited to: Having an avatar with your real picture on it, having your last name in your username, posting your e-mail address in a thread, posting pictures of your family, etc.

N.6 why don't you write under your real name ? Are you not confident of the Faith. Or also like others career comes before the Faith.

JMJ,

George

Lionel Andrades wrote:I am referring to a general immaturity that I have come across since Pascendi, N.6.

Lionel

N.6 why don't you write under your real name ? Are you not confident of the Faith. Or also like others career comes before the Faith.

How about you find somewhere else to post?

Righto N.6! I know this is Rasha Lampa's forum and I will be on my best behaviour!

otremer6 wrote:

Lionel Andrades wrote:I am referring to a general immaturity that I have come across since Pascendi, N.6.

Lionel

N.6 why don't you write under your real name ? Are you not confident of the Faith. Or also like others career comes before the Faith.

How about you find somewhere else to post?

Same to you -- how about you find somewhere else to post??? And, yes, I think that you are "immature." Frankly, I do not care "one way or another" if you leave the forum. And, the next time before you make some baseless accusations, try reading the posts beforehand! That's what moderators are supposed to do!!

P.S. I am not going to be on my "best behavior," Rasha or "no Rasha."

Jehanne,

Word of advice from someone who has had his share of difficulties with moderators; O6 was not addressing you, and Lionel was clearly out of line (and said he would behave himself). Water under the bridge, but you can't let it go because you are still stinging from O6's mistake in identity, and apologized. So, get over it.

You sound petty and vindictive.

O6 is the moderator of this forum and really doesn't need advice from anyone on how to moderate, at least not in that tone which is anything but constructive. He also has carte blanche authority to warn, admonish and to temporarily or even permanently ban anyone when he deems it necessary, so why do you confront him with such empty bravado?

If you can't respect the authority of the moderator, perhaps you should leave.

And what is this?

I am not going to be on my "best behavior," Rasha or "no Rasha."

You are like the criminal who points a gun to his own head and says to the policeman, "come any closer, and I'll shoot!"

Well, I guess you showed him!

We finally have a moderator (your long-standing complaint), and you act like you're ticked because it is not you.

"For the record" (for whatever that's worth), I think that O6 is a poor moderator. He's like a surgeon who didn't know which leg to operate on, and his "half-hearted apology" does not, for me, go far enough. For starters, I have been on this board now for over 2 years; I don't need anyone tell me or any other forum member that "I don't care if you stay or leave" (or whatever he said, and if such is his attitude, I think that he should be the one who leaves.) Such is definitively not the role of a good moderator, and I know having been a moderator years ago on a board myself. Right now there are only four of us who are actively posting anyway, so if O6 wants to eliminate a quarter of this board's traffic, go right ahead; in the end, all that will remain will be his PSAs.

If O6 has the "power" to ban me, great, he can "make my day," but until then, I think that Rasha should reconsider things a bit. Frankly, I think that O6 is being both "rude and immature."

Jehanne wrote:"For the record" (for whatever that's worth), I think that O6 is a poor moderator. He's like a surgeon who didn't know which leg to operate on, and his "half-hearted apology" does not, for me, go far enough. For starters, I have been on this board now for over 2 years; I don't need anyone tell me or any other forum member that "I don't care if you stay or leave" (or whatever he said, and if such is his attitude, I think that he should be the one who leaves.) Such is definitively not the role of a good moderator, and I know having been a moderator years ago on a board myself. Right now there are only four of us who are actively posting anyway, so if O6 wants to eliminate a quarter of this board's traffic, go right ahead; in the end, all that will remain will be his PSAs.

If O6 has the "power" to ban me, great, he can "make my day," but until then, I think that Rasha should reconsider things a bit. Frankly, I think that O6 is being both "rude and immature."

Then you can find another forum.

I notice that the forum rules were : " Last edited by Forum Janitor on Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:14 pm; edited 10 times in total." Maybe its time to review and edit if necessary. I will try to obey all the rules and be subject to the moderation of Otremer6.


JMJ,

Georrge

O6 is as cuddly as a Dobermann Pinscher, and just as pointedly direct.



But if you want cuddly, there’s always Cath. Ans.



I tried to convert O6 to the big teddy bear family of Rottweilers, no such luck.

otremer6 wrote:

Jehanne wrote:"For the record" (for whatever that's worth), I think that O6 is a poor moderator. He's like a surgeon who didn't know which leg to operate on, and his "half-hearted apology" does not, for me, go far enough. For starters, I have been on this board now for over 2 years; I don't need anyone tell me or any other forum member that "I don't care if you stay or leave" (or whatever he said, and if such is his attitude, I think that he should be the one who leaves.) Such is definitively not the role of a good moderator, and I know having been a moderator years ago on a board myself. Right now there are only four of us who are actively posting anyway, so if O6 wants to eliminate a quarter of this board's traffic, go right ahead; in the end, all that will remain will be his PSAs.

If O6 has the "power" to ban me, great, he can "make my day," but until then, I think that Rasha should reconsider things a bit. Frankly, I think that O6 is being both "rude and immature."

Then you can find another forum.

I think I will. Goodbye and Good Riddance. Those who want to know my views further can find them here:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Goodbye Columba, Lionel and George; if you want to email me, you can find my email address on the above webpage.

Michael,

Regarding being on 'my best behaviour' that was a joke.
I have not done anything bad.
I just asked Sargeant 6 a question and he responded in that funny way.
I agree with Jehanne that he is immature just like you.One has to expect it because of your age. I was like this once upon a time a long time back.
May be it is unintential but O6 and Michael are rude and often plain old...immature.
I think an apology is due to Jehanne, if your politics there can handle it.
Lionel

Lionel Andrades wrote:Michael,

Regarding being on 'my best behaviour' that was a joke.
I have not done anything bad.

You presence on this forum is a "joke", and so is your ignorant "dead-mean-walking" ecclesiology. Forums have to suffer fools, and if they don't, its called being "rude".

You and Jehanne act like a couple of spoiled brats and expect "apologies" for having been admonished for your boorish immature behavior.

You were out of line with your insult against O6, you think you are above forum protocol, and your defiance is typical of those who think they are better and more "mature" than others.

You still owe Dr. Kopp an apology for smearing his Catholic name, but you are above common decency. And you will call this outrage "charity".

Jehanne,

Do not leave the forum unless they ban you and they have not done that yet.
At the same time also take 06's advice and begin a new Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum.Since you have the informatics capability

You notice on traditionalist forums we are banned because we hold the 'rigorist interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney. For them, like Michael, the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They do not understand that the baptism of desire etc has nothing to do with the dogma.It is irrelevant.So after some time when they see that you are not picking up their heresy they get irritated (as Michael is here) and they get rid of you.

So we need an Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum in which the dogma is upheld without the error of the baptism of desire etc being considered explicit.This would be a true Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum.

May be Michael and others own this forum and so every one has to suffer his doctrinal stupidity under the name of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Once he hijacked the Pascendi forum and named it after him.

We must be able to dialogue with pèople who assume that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma and still refuse to change for whatever reasons. I know they would be mo appropriate to be on the Yuku forum or one of George Soros sponsored websites.But we have to accept it.

You have the technical ability to start a new Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum until this one gets in line with doctrine.May be on that forum there will be more charity.Members will not want those who disagree with them to leave.

Lionel Andrades wrote:Jehanne,

Do not leave the forum unless they ban you and they have not done that yet.
At the same time also take 06's advice and begin a new Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum.Since you have the informatics capability

Oh yes, please begin another Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum. Perhaps you can call it "No Dead-Men-Walking".

You do not seem to realize, Lionel, that Jehanne actually rejects your "dead-men-walking" thesis, but still wants to encourage you since "Feeneyites" must stick together, no how matter how absurd a particular thesis, and no matter that even Fr. Feeney would scoff at it. Perhaps you can invite columba and promote the no sanctification outside of visible Church membership dogma, and the justification by the merits of Christ for the remission of sins immediately exclusive of sanctifying grace and supernatural charity dogma.

Columba is just following your script, Lionel, and its called "private interpretation". This is why there will always be a particular breed of Feeneyites who simply toot there own horn, no matter how absurd and heterodox, - and to hell with the living authentic Magisterium of the Church.

Lionel Andrades wrote:You notice on traditionalist forums we are banned because we hold the 'rigorist interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney. For them, like Michael, the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They do not understand that the baptism of desire etc has nothing to do with the dogma.It is irrelevant.So after some time when they see that you are not picking up their heresy they get irritated (as Michael is here) and they get rid of you.

Good luck selling that bit of jaded malarkey.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
So we need an Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum in which the dogma is upheld without the error of the baptism of desire etc being considered explicit.This would be a true Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum.

Go for it! Call it the "No Dead-Men-Walking Visible-to-us Salvation" forum!

Lionel Andrades wrote:May be Michael and others own this forum and so every one has to suffer his doctrinal stupidity under the name of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Once he hijacked the Pascendi forum and named it after him.

No, Lionel, that is completely false. But, like the smear job you did on Dr. Kopp, you don't really care. I never "hijacked the Pascendi forum and named it after" me, that was Pascendi who tried to "give" me the forum - I wouldn't take it. Go ahead, ask him.

And please don't even go down the "doctrinal stupidity" road, you are just asking for it.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
You have the technical ability to start a new Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum until this one gets in line with doctrine.May be on that forum there will be more charity.Members will not want those who disagree with them to leave.

Until one gets in line with the doctrine of Lionel. That's rich - the dogma of one.

What's the matter, Lionel, are you looking for a "No Dead-Men-Walking Visible to us Salvation" home?

Good luck with that.

Jahane rage quits all the time, and then writes these long screeds asking to have his posts removed etc...

He'll probably be back.

Lionel Andrades wrote:Jehanne,

Do not leave the forum unless they ban you and they have not done that yet.
At the same time also take 06's advice and begin a new Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum.Since you have the informatics capability

You notice on traditionalist forums we are banned because we hold the 'rigorist interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney. For them, like Michael, the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They do not understand that the baptism of desire etc has nothing to do with the dogma.It is irrelevant.So after some time when they see that you are not picking up their heresy they get irritated (as Michael is here) and they get rid of you.

So we need an Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum in which the dogma is upheld without the error of the baptism of desire etc being considered explicit.This would be a true Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum.

May be Michael and others own this forum and so every one has to suffer his doctrinal stupidity under the name of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Once he hijacked the Pascendi forum and named it after him.

We must be able to dialogue with pèople who assume that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma and still refuse to change for whatever reasons. I know they would be mo appropriate to be on the Yuku forum or one of George Soros sponsored websites.But we have to accept it.

You have the technical ability to start a new Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum until this one gets in line with doctrine.May be on that forum there will be more charity.Members will not want those who disagree with them to leave.

I just don't like the way you tried to villify Doctor Brian Kopp, and how you presumptuously assume that you're an arbiter of what is and what isn't acceptable doctrine to hold, or presume to state that the forum doesn't approve of what you believe is a correct interpretation of the Dogma.

From what I've seen, you're a puffed up trouble maker.

Jehanne,

One must be aware that there are members of this forum who hold that Cantate Domino has exceptions. So if the dogma has exceptions (which it does not mention as Columba also observes) then this becomes the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with visible baptism of desire).

So there is the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus with visible baptism of desire according to Michael and Dr.Brian Kopp and may be others. And there is the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus with no (visible baptism of desire). So there must be tension when both groups assert their beliefs.

So presently the Forum is coming across as a project to promote extra ecclesiam nulla salus as including the baptism of desire. And it seems the forum is supported technically and financially by Michael and Brian with Rasha as the front.

On a traditionalist forum like Angel Queen, Fish Eaters etc they are intolerant,just like Michael and Brian here, when you affirm the dogma with no baptism of desire as it was historically known, before the Richard Cushing Heresy, shared by some members who still receive the Eucharist since no one protests to their Parish Priest.

I affirm the dogma according to the St.Benedict Centers. There is " no (visible) baptism of desire" and the baptism of desire is only accepted (in principle, in faith) along with the baptism of water".And I can only keep repeating the magisterial texts (and not say anything new) which affirms the St. Benedict Center position e.g Cantate Domino, Letter of the Holy Office , Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus. Also none of these Magisterial documents mention a visible baptism of desire or any salvation which is physically visible to us.

According to members of this forum, for whom implicit to us salvation is physically visible it means they can see the dead saved. There is the dead man walking.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
And it seems the forum is supported technically and financially by Michael and Brian with Rasha as the front.

Lionel,

From the start, Rahsa made clear that there were no expenses associated with the running of the forum. The cost incurred for the disabling of ads was funded by voluntary donations from members. I think this is an annually recurring charge to keep the forum ad free but Rasha has never (to my knowledge) requested financial aid from any members here and such aid outside of the disabling of ads was declined when offered.

My point being; I don't believe the application of the rules of the forum are compromised in any way by the finacial donations of certain members because I don't believe such donations (outside of ad disabling) would be accepted.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
According to members of this forum, for whom implicit to us salvation is physically visible it means they can see the dead saved. There is the dead man walking.

To use your own words, this is “doctrinal stupidity". It is absolutely false, and you cannot respond to my total deconstruction of this fallacious absurdity.

You haven’t a clue, and who are you to come on this forum and dictate the terms of how Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is presented?

And who on this forum dictates what the Feeneyite dogma actually is?

Jehanne, who accepts as “de fide” the salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire, even if he believes no one is actually saved by these non-sacramental means?

Columba, the de facto sede who rejects outright extra-sacramental sanctification; rejects the St. Benedict Center interpretation of Session 6, Ch. 4, and rejects Canon XI of the same Session as it immediately applies to the saints of the old dispensation?

The St. Benedict Center NH, the official position of which accepts extra-sacramental sanctification but rejects the salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire, and promotes a form of non-salvific sanctifying grace?

Lionel, whose “doctrinal stupidity” promotes a straw-man dead-man-walking thesis that is demonstrably false and would be rejected by the St. Benedict Center outright?

O6, who rejects the extra-sacramental regeneration of the Holy Innocents by the merits of the Passion to come, and now says that this forum “approves” of Lionel's fallacious "dead-man-walking" doctrine?

Who speaks for Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus on this forum?

If my presence here angers some of you, too bad; get over it, I’m still here. The truth of the perennial, living and authentic Magisterium will prevail.

O6
'trouble maker'

Lionel:
Any one who says there is a visible to us baptism of desire on an extra ecclesiam nulla salus forum is in for 'trouble.' Inform your friends Michael and others.

Hi Every one,
Tomorrow is a Day of Fasting for those below 60 years and who are not ill.This could include all the active members on this forum.If you have an evening meal or drink water, then it is a Day of Abstinence and not fasting.
On a Day of Fasting after 12 to 18 hours one has to be aware of ones thoughts and emotions.Otherwise it could get rough.
You cannot read, or more so write the stuff, we are accustomed to on this forum.
So for me it is day of silence (forum-wise and otherwise).
Jehanne this is an important time for you,also especially with the recent death of your Dad.
Keep me, and our immature friends on this board in your prayers.May be after 10 or 15 years they will hold on to the correct doctrine and even will give their life for it.
Santo Mercoledi Ceneri to all.

Yes, a day off from refuting "doctrinal stupidity" is already planned.

Prayer, Mass, ashes, fasting and abstinence, and to pray for the Church, for the pope, and for each other.

Our Lady, Queen of Martyrs, ora pro nobis.

Lionel Andrades wrote:O6
'trouble maker'

Lionel:
Any one who says there is a visible to us baptism of desire on an extra ecclesiam nulla salus forum is in for 'trouble.' Inform your friends Michael and others.

Why don't you inform me?

In fact, why don't you invite me to your blog where we can have a no-holds barred (no editing or rejection of posts) debate on your fallacious "dead-men-walking doctrinal stupidity"? I will be on my best behavior, for I want everyone who may read your blog to read the truth and to see how your fallacious thesis wilts under the first stiff breeze of truth and logic.

Are you up to it, Lionel?

Yea...One meal and two collations is the lawfull limit of food intake; unlike St Paul, he had one main meal and two Colossians.

Michael,

Any one is free to ask questions on my blog and I answer them.Just as on this forum.However you can post your questions on my blog. I do not edit any comments.You may most them under your name or anonymously.

I have nothing new to say. If you repeat your leftist, liberal position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus I will repeat the same thing I have written here.

P.s Now I'll take a break.

Nah, your hunt for Brian Kopp went beyond acceptable behavior for a normal human being, much less someone who is supposed to be a Christian.

And your Sister Prejean leftist fantasy isn't taught by the Church. You're probably a heresiarch, just not a very popular one.

<<O6, who rejects the extra-sacramental regeneration of the Holy Innocents by the merits of the Passion to come, and now says that this forum “approves” of Lionel's fallacious "dead-man-walking" doctrine? >>

MegRyan, if you're going to quote me, at least don't misrepresent me.

The Church wasn't established by Christ at the time the Holy Innocents died, much less the institution of baptism.

otremer6 wrote:<<O6, who rejects the extra-sacramental regeneration of the Holy Innocents by the merits of the Passion to come, and now says that this forum “approves” of Lionel's fallacious "dead-man-walking" doctrine? >>

MegRyan, if you're going to quote me, at least don't misrepresent me.

The Church wasn't established by Christ at the time the Holy Innocents died, much less the institution of baptism.

Actually, OtremerPantyWaist6 (OPW6), I didn’t misrepresent you at all, for you do in fact reject “the extra-sacramental regeneration of the Holy Innocents by the merits of the Passion to come”. You insist that the Holy Innocents and the Just of the old dispensation could not have been justified by the grace of regeneration (the sanctifying grace of Baptism) until “after Christ descended into Hell to draw them out”.

Why is that? You replied:

Because there was no law of baptism. The Church hadn't been established yet either. There was only the prefigurement of the Church in the Jewish people. In other words, prior [to] Christ establishing the Sacrament, there was no law prescribing it so it's disingenuous at best to pretend that the Holy Innocents had received the Grace of Baptism according to a Law that hadn't been established.

Sorry, but the grace of justification/regeneration (to include the remission of sins) by the application of the merits of the Passion to come did not depend on the “Law of Baptism”, but on Christ and the Holy Ghost who applied “the merits of Christ who was to come”, precisely as it is spelled out by Pope Leo XIII:

It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna … Moreover … their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come

In other words, as the ancient Ambrosian Missile says of the Holy Innocents:

“and being bathed in their own blood, he effects in them the salvation of regeneration, and gives them the crown of martyrdom”.

This "salvation of regeneration" is the same essential salvific regeneration effected in Baptism, and our Lord was not restricted by a future “law” when transmitting the Justice/merits of His future Passion to the saints who lived before “a Law that hadn't been established”.

You defy not only the Doctors of the Church, but Pope St. Leo the Great who wrote in his Sermon XXXI: on the Feast of the Epiphany, I:

But that which the wicked king removes from the world, Christ admits to heaven: and on those for whom He had not yet spent His redeeming blood, He already bestows the dignity of martyrdom.

And, in pure defiance to the Papal Magisterium and to Tradition; in typical Feeneyite fashion (columba went to the same school of private heterodox interpretation), you invent your own dogma, but cannot seem to get it straight.

For example, if it is “disingenuous at best to pretend that the Holy Innocents had received the Grace of Baptism according to a Law that hadn't been established”, how is it possible that our Lord immediately applied the merits of His passion (the sanctifying grace of baptism) to the Holy Innocents when He “descended into Hell to draw them out” when the law of baptism, the “one baptism for the remission of sins”, hadn't been established?

The institution of baptism is NOT the Law of Baptism, the “solemn promulgation” of which “took place on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii- 38, 39)”, according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

So, OPW6, when you say the Holy Innocents [and all the rest] “were not justified till after Christ descended into Hell to draw them out”, did our Lord descend into Hell to inform them that they would have to wait to be drawn out of the Limbo of the Fathers until the Law of Baptism was solemnly promulgated on the day of Pentecost?

Did our Lord "draw them out" with the grace of Baptism in anticipation of the future promulgation of the Law? Are you actually suggesting that our Lord is not bound by the promulgation of the Law to effect its essential end?

In other words, please explain why it is not "disingenuous at best to pretend that the Holy Innocents had received the Grace of Baptism according to a Law that hadn't been established", and wouldn't be established until Pentecost?

And, if the Limbus Patrum kept the saints hostage until Pentecost, did these same saints become re-united with their corrupted bodies for the purpose of Baptism (by angels?), or did the promulgation of the Law itself on the day of Pentecost trigger an ipso facto remission of sins and regeneration into Christ without the laver of regeneration?

Are you blind to the mess of contradictions that result when you defy the Church and her Doctors with your pathetic man-made doctrine?

But, columba can take comfort in the fact that we have another member of the forum who rejects the doctrine of extra-sacramental justification and the extra-sacramental remission of sins that were IN FACT effected “in those of the just who lived before Christ” by “the Holy Ghost” who “resided” and “dwelled … by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”, and whose justice was “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.

Heralds of heterodoxy need to stick together.

lol check it out. Mike praises the mod, and then turns on him all on the same page. It's all about whose butt to kiss at the strategic time. There was a study done once called the Stanford Prison Experiment. Worth looking into.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih8NfDPtWSU

So anyways, as I was saying somewhere else but can't find it, why not just stop for a while? It isn't doing your souls any good, obviously. It is Lent. Take a break and self-examine. Eternity is a loooooooong time.

Baptism wasn’t instituted until the Great Commission.

Putting words in people’s mouth is a form of deceitfulness and against the forum rules.

Please abide by them, thanks.

You all seriously need a break.

Pascendi, the great spiritual adviser, is back.

He can't resist.

OPW6 knows my name is not "Meg". Its called a deliberate provocation for the sheer joy of being provocative.

He can take the return volley, he just can't take his silly false doctrine being demolished by Doctors, Saints, Popes and Tradition; and especially by me; so he responds in the only way he knows how.

And, it is so nice to hear that you believe in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the necessity of baptism, honest to goodness, what a relief.

I am indeed the great spiritual advisor. Some call me... Tiiiiim?

Important technical note concerning spelling though: "In general, adviser and advisor are interchangeable. However, adviser is used more generally to mean someone who is giving advice (what they are doing), whereas advisor is more commonly used when it means the primary role (what they are), such as job title, etc."

Mike, I could so ruin you. You claim this six foot four status stuff, and I'm six-two and skinny, but I would so very much ruin you in person, to the benefit of all. Sit across an honest-to-God table with me sometime; you'd try all your ordinary stuff about how you're so correct and accurate and loyal and how your opposition is all fraud, but I'd sit at a table in front of you, two inches less tall and several pounds to the negative and show you a man who cares about the Catholic truth until you're suffocated in your own blatherings. Hello? People actually care about the truth besides you, Mike.

I mean, really, quit with your pretext of the great and intelligent "defender of the Faith" facade. All you really are is someone looking for affirmation. You want affirmation? I give it to you.

Quit already, and get more real.

And go do Lent and shut up for a while. The entire Mystical Body will thank you, and you'll later agree.

pascendi wrote:Mike, I could so ruin you. You claim this six foot four status stuff, and I'm six-two and skinny, but I would so very much ruin you in person, to the benefit of all. Sit across an honest-to-God table with me sometime; you'd try all your ordinary stuff about how you're so correct and accurate and loyal and how your opposition is all fraud, but I'd sit at a table in front of you, two inches less tall and several pounds to the negative and show you a man who cares about the Catholic truth until you're suffocated in your own blatherings. Hello? People actually care about the truth besides you, Mike.

Such bloviating bombastic bravado -- it boggles the brain.

So, I am the only one who cares about Catholic truth. Well, I guess we'll just have to take your word for it.

I've never seen anyone with so much bluster, and so little to back it up.

Truly, you need help. Always trying to prove yourself and your manhood; its pathetic.

Take Lent off, and relax.

And, please, and no more public meltdowns, its quite embarrassing for all concerned.

Oooooh... you're good.

At least until I point out that "OtremerPantyWaist6" is the equivalent of "meltdown". You should seek employment with one the of major news outlets. They need people who can make other people look like nutballs who tell the truth. "Eh... he's just a conspiraaaaacy theorist, no credibility!!" while they go around doing... the same exact thing.

You're impressive, Mike. You could really go places in the Catholic celebrity world. You like my meltdowns? I've got something juicy for you, you'll really like it. Seatbelts on, everyone. Ok. Let's look at St. Thomas More's meltdown. Don't believe it? Look it up for yourselves. You too, Mike. St. More concerning Luther:



"Come, do not rage so violently, good father; but if you have raved wildly enough, listen now, you pimp. You recall that you falsely complained above that the king has shown no passage in your whole book, even as an example, in which he said that you contradict yourself. You told this lie shortly before, although the king has demonstrated to you many examples of your inconsistency ....

But meanwhile, for as long as your reverend paternity will be determined to tell these shameless lies, others will be permitted, on behalf of his English majesty, to throw back into your paternity's sh**ty mouth, truly the sh**-pool of all sh**, all the muck and sh** which your damnable rottenness has vomited up, and to empty out all the sewers and privies onto your crown divested of the dignity of the priestly crown, against which no less than against the kingly crown you have determined to play the buffoon.

In your sense of fairness, honest reader, you will forgive me that the utterly filthy words of this scoundrel have forced me to answer such things, for which I should have begged your leave. Now I consider truer than truth that saying: 'He who touches pitch will be wholly defiled by it' (Sirach 13:1). For I am ashamed even of this necessity, that while I clean out the fellow's sh**-filled mouth I see my own fingers covered with sh**."

--Sir Thomas More, Responsio ad Lutherum

'night, Mike.

otremer6 wrote:Baptism wasn’t instituted until the Great Commission.

I know when Baptism was instituted, I know when it was declared necessary, and I also know when it was promulgated as the Law of Baptism.

CCOT: III. The institution of Baptism, 1. Baptism was foretold by our Lord to Nicodemus (John 3). 2. It was instituted most probably when our Lord Himself was baptized in the Jordan. 3. Its use began when Christ and His disciples were baptizing (John 3:4). The Sacrament became of precept when our Lord expired on the cross. 5. The necessity of Baptism was proclaimed by the Saviour after the Resurrection (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15), and its solemn promulgation took place on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-39). (Catechism of the Council of Trent)

The “Great Commission” does not take effect (promulgated) until Pentecost: “I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:49)

Immediately after being clothed with power from on high: Acts 2:38-39: Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

The latter is called the “Promulgation of the Gospel”. But I bet you knew that.

And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Fourth Chapter, A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.)

Continuing:

otremer6 wrote:Putting words in people’s mouth is a form of deceitfulness and against the forum rules.

Please abide by them, thanks.

Do you know my name? Then abide by the rules and stop mocking my name and my person.

People on this forum misrepresent what I say all day long, so stop with the melodrama.

Furthermore, I haven't put any words in your mouth and cited you verbatim (from a previous thread on this very topic). Are your own words deceitful?

If you think I have misrepresented you, then show me.

Its that simple, and its usually how these thing work.

pascendi wrote:Oooooh... you're good.

'night, Mike.

No so good.

'night, Paul.

pascendi wrote:Oooooh... you're good.

I've got something juicy for you, you'll really like it. Seatbelts on, everyone. Ok. Let's look at St. Thomas More's meltdown. Don't believe it? Look it up for yourselves. You too, Mike. St. More concerning Luther:

What lengths one will go to justify one's dramatic public meltdowns when responding not to the lies Luther, but to a Catholic.

Yes, quite impressive, and I bet you are duly impressed with yourself.

'night, again. Sorry if you are ignored from here on out.

It's Lent.

Ignored by you? That'll be fine. I thought it might be a bit strange if you meant ignored by others though. I don't think there's much of a readership.