Coffee, Donuts, & Spite?

[Insanis]

People at times have accused me of being "not Catholic", a heretic, and other false accusations, you people never posted a defense of me, but you post against me when I acknowledge the statements of someone?

That is messed up.

This person mocked me for not wavering in professing my religion, and you support him in his errors.

You can tell this forum is on its last legs when even a completely harmless thread posted in "Coffee Pot" about Hindus having some similar insights to Catholicism concerning the end times, has been immediately hijacked by our resident dynamic duo and turned into another occasion to virtue signal ad nauseam, until KK duly obliged them and locked it.

Virtue signalling?

You have no grounds for saying such a thing about me.

It is a traditional Catholic forum, not a "cultural Catholic hangout".

Yes, Rosarium, we get it. You're pious and you want the world to know it.

Now, please, do something charitable for the forum and let adult conversation resume.

[Insanis]

I don't want non-Catholics (who profess it! it is not my judgement) telling me who or what is "Catholic" or not.

The Church has taught that and that is all I need.

It is the Ninth Article of the Creed and I recommend one study it. If any parts of it and the doctrines related to it are rejected, please, do not use that heresy to harass Catholics on Catholic forums.

Recognize your status and seek healing.

[Vetus Ordo]

Any catechism worth using will present a contrary view to your statement, it is contrary to The Ninth Article of the Creed.

Please demonstrate how the statement I made (I don't know which you're referring to) is contrary to the ninth article of the Creed.

Your doctrine is false and you are spiritually and intellectually sick. You should seek treatment.

I'm usually inclined to take this sort of spiritual bravado kindly when I know that the person on the other side is being sincere. However, your posting history in SD demonstrates the opposite. While I sympathized with you back in the days of FE, sadly in the past month or so you've revealed yourself to be one of the pettiest posters I have ever seen on an internet forum: completely self-absorbed (obsessed about what other people think or say about you); incapable of maintaining an adult conversation; absence of social skills that are necessary to have a fruitful dialogue; a delusional image of your own importance and role as an inquisitor of doctrine and mores, a behavior that has, predictably, antagonized most of the forum; a penchant to trivialize accusations of moral impropriety, etc.

Realize the following, Insanis: as amazing as this may sound to you, neither I nor anyone else here has any moral obligation to answer anonymous users and online personae on the internet. That's real life. Deal with it.

[Insanis]

While I sympathized with you back in the days of FE, sadly in the past month or so you've revealed yourself to be one of the pettiest posters I have ever seen on an internet forum: completely self-absorbed (obsessed about what other people think or say about you);

Back when you were not Catholic? Back when I posted extensively on moral theology and the issues Catholics may have?

I am not obsessed: it is just relentless. Do you not consider how I see the forum and how I experience it? Do you know what kind of volume of statements against me it takes for me to really acknowledge it?

incapable of maintaining an adult conversation; absence of social skills that are necessary to have a fruitful dialogue; a delusional image of your own importance and role as an inquisitor of doctrine and mores,

That is not true.

a behavior that has, predictably, antagonized most of the forum; a penchant to trivialize accusations of moral impropriety, etc.

Antagonized most of the forum? Do you not see how "most of the forum" can involve overrepresentation of professed non-Catholics at any given time? Do you not see how some threads were dominated by people posting and supporting blasphemies (in the past)?

These are not trivial things. But people complaining about the volume of posts is trivial in light of what I was posting against.

Realize the following, Insanis: as amazing as this may sound to you, neither I nor anyone else here has any moral obligation to answer anonymous users and online personae on the internet. That's real life. Deal with it.

Likewise, I'm sure.

It is amazing how you accept that others may post against me, threads about me, false accusations and lies, constantly, yet, you never posted against those things.

But if I post something about another, it is a huge issue.

It is a double standard.

This forum is sick: it has a selection bias.

[Insanis]

As for the Ninth Article, you reject it in your posts. You should see it, unless you truly believe your way is "right", in which case, that is a personal view being placed over the doctrines of the Church.

And do you not see that someone posting you are not Catholic causes no rebuttal but you accuse me?

If nothing else, that is extremely troubling behaviour if you are a Catholic. This is a Catholic forum, why should one hesitate to profess one's faith if doubts are expressed?

Silence when you should speak is meaningful.

I know you are not obligated to respond to me, but situations sometimes do impose an obligation by themselves. It has nothing to do with me. It is not my doctrine or authority.

[Insanis]

Vetus Ordo, you are also lying. I never pointed out any errors to correct them that others haven't done before on this forum.

Others asked you quite a bit whether you were Catholic when you resumed posting, and you never affirmed it.

Others protested the blasphemies against Our Lady and the singular saint who was blasphemed before I ever joined.

As for the number and kind of non-Catholics who post, I am not the first to address that either, but I might be the first to demonstrate that there is a pattern which makes it particularly dangerous.

So, you are wrong.

I know you don't accept that, but you are. You thought you were right when you were professing another doctrine, and you think you are right now.

I have the same faith as I have always have. You are the one who wavers and holds novel interpretations.

[Vetus Ordo]

It is amazing how you accept that others may post against me, threads about me, false accusations and lies, constantly, yet, you never posted against those things.

It's not my job to be your white knight. Jayne is already busy with that.

This forum is sick: it has a selection bias.

Then take it up with Kaesekopf.

As for the Ninth Article, you reject it in your posts. You should see it, unless you truly believe your way is "right", in which case, that is a personal view being placed over the doctrines of the Church.

Please demonstrate how the statement I made (I don't know which you're referring to) is contrary to the ninth article of the Creed.

And do you not see that someone posting you are not Catholic causes no rebuttal but you accuse me?

If nothing else, that is extremely troubling behaviour if you are a Catholic. This is a Catholic forum, why should one hesitate to profess one's faith if doubts are expressed?

Silence when you should speak is meaningful.

I know you are not obligated to respond to me, but situations sometimes do impose an obligation by themselves. It has nothing to do with me. It is not my doctrine or authority.

I have no moral obligation to respond to anyone on this or any other forum. That's all there is to it.

When an anonymous user on the forum accuses me of not being Catholic, or when he thinks so highly of himself that he sets himself up as an inquisitor, then he can expect his demands for explanations to be treated with the contempt that they deserve.

Vetus Ordo, you are also lying. I never pointed out any errors to correct them that others haven't done before on this forum.

Others asked you quite a bit whether you were Catholic when you resumed posting, and you never affirmed it.

Of course I have affirmed it. More than once in fact. Look it up, since that's your favorite pass-time.

Furthermore, you throw the word "lying" around very liberally, Insanis. You should be more careful about it. Your misguided zeal can lead you to bear false witness against your neighbor. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a job, a family, and other adult responsibilities to attend to.

[Jayne]

... neither I nor anyone else here has any moral obligation to answer anonymous users and online personae on the internet. That's real life. ...

That is not how Christianity works.  We do have a moral obligation to verbally express our faith.  Something is really wrong when a person is unwilling to put "Roman Catholic" in the religion field of his profile or unambiguously state that he is a Catholic when asked.

There are real people reading your posts.  You cannot just dismiss us as "anonymous users and online personae".  Something is not right if you refuse to confess the faith before us.  History is full of people who chose death rather than deny the Catholic faith.  If you wish to claim them as your heritage, you do have a moral obligation to answer for your faith.

[Insanis]

I'm usually inclined to take this sort of spiritual bravado kindly when I know that the person on the other side is being sincere. However, your posting history in SD demonstrates the opposite. While I sympathized with you back in the days of FE, sadly in the past month or so you've revealed yourself to be one of the pettiest posters I have ever seen on an internet forum

Yes, I did.

You must be Rosarium from Fish Eaters, if I'm not mistaken. Welcome back!

I would like to point something out here: I'm the same person I was back then.

Do you not remember?

Back then, I posted far more than I do now. I posted far more critical commentary on what other people posted, and I was far more willing to express personal opinions. And I was younger.

So you remember this and were overall sympathetic, yet, you say these things about me now.

What changed?

I'm a milder version of myself. I focus on the basics of theology and doctrine now.

Don't you remember on this very forum my posts about the errors Catholics were holding internally?

Why do you denounce me now and make those accusations?

I suspect you have cognitive dissonance. Back when you were a card carrying heretic/apostate, you were far more accepting of my Catholic perspective. But now that you are professing a cultural Catholic system, you are double minded and my posts are irking you specifically.

A double minded man is inconstant in all his ways.

I know you criticized my reading of old posts, but you should try it to see what patterns you have and what I have.

I'm a milder version of myself, and you are all over the place.

I barely remember the old days well, so I have to reference the old posts.

A lot has changed, but a lot hasn't, and I profess the same faith now as I did then, and I never stopped or wavered.

You, however, have not.

What did you believe before? What do you believe now? What will you believe tomorrow?

I'm sure whatever it is, you'll think it is "right", but you should recognize you are not able to clearly identify what is right. You cannot even accurate perceive me!

[Insanis]

As for professions of faith: you don't.

Being demure about this sort of thing is not at all a good thing.

[Miriam_M]

... neither I nor anyone else here has any moral obligation to answer anonymous users and online personae on the internet. That's real life. ...

That is not how Christianity works.  We do have a moral obligation to verbally express our faith.  Something is really wrong when a person is unwilling to put "Roman Catholic" in the religion field of his profile or unambiguously state that he is a Catholic when asked.

There are real people reading your posts.  You cannot just dismiss us as "anonymous users and online personae".  Something is not right if you refuse to confess the faith before us.  History is full of people who chose death rather than deny the Catholic faith.  If you wish to claim them as your heritage, you do have a moral obligation to answer for your faith.

You have an incorrect understanding of the extent of accountability for the individual Catholic Christian.  A discussion forum is an example of an informal Catholic setting that does not obligate a Catholic to profess anything by an implicit moral standard, since the other members have no formal (canonical) roles in the Catholic Church. Now, an owner could make a public profession of faith a requirement of membership if he or she wished: "Profess publicly your faith/baptismal vows [etc.] prior to enjoying privileges to post on this forum."  However, he has not done so. So a demand by non-moderators that Vetus or anyone else make a profession of faith is an example of usurpation of authority, which is in itself a sin, according to Fr. Ripperger.

In addition, a Catholic's conscience, if well formed, can convict himself of Human Respect, the sin of obstinate incredulity, or other violation of the First Commandment, but that is not a matter for formal correction and satisfaction in this setting, since a discussion forum is an informal Catholic vehicle which lacks the authority of the See or even the member's local priest. Violations of the First Commandment, which include being ashamed to profess one's faith, are matters for private Confession, IRL.

Nevertheless, simply identifying oneself on a Profile as "Catholic" is not a guarantee of truth or fidelity for any of us, since real-life membership cannot be verified on an anonymous discussion forum. Most forum owners choose to withhold such a demand for verified identity due to reasons of privacy. Plenty of sincere Catholics do not wish to make public their real-life identity for many legitimate reasons.

[Insanis]

If Vetus Ordo thinks my "social skills" are somehow significant, then he sees it as a social engagement among individuals.

If he wishes to address me personally, with such familiarity, then he will be treated the same.

Double standards are not my concern.

If what one posts can be detraction. calumny, etc, then there are moral considerations to how one presents oneself and interacts.

So a demand by non-moderators that Vetus or anyone else make a profession of faith is an example of usurpation of authority, which is in itself a sin, according to Fr. Ripperger.

Others were asking him before. Is that a sin?

It isn't a demand as much as a request to know what he holds. After all, the last time I interacted with him, he professed a non-Catholic religion and stood by it, and I see no retractions since then, yet, there is some weird idea that I should accept him as Catholic.

Why would I do that?

I'm not going to contradict someone if they say such a thing about themselves.

[Insanis]

So, in short, I see him as non-Catholic because that is the last thing he professed.

What he has said since then was mere cultural Catholicism, and I've seen professed atheists do that.

If anybody thinks I am wrong, they have to cite why.

He's apparently posted like a Muslim and he definitely posted as a Protestant, and posting as a Catholic is yet another example. I'm not going to assume when there are words published. He has not professed the faith as far as I can see, but he has opposed it.

[Jayne]

You have an incorrect understanding of the extent of accountability for the individual Catholic Christian.  A discussion forum is an example of an informal Catholic setting that does not obligate a Catholic to profess anything by an implicit moral standard, since the other members have no formal (canonical) roles in the Catholic Church. Now, an owner could make a public profession of faith a requirement of membership if he or she wished: "Profess publicly your faith/baptismal vows [etc.] prior to enjoying privileges to post on this forum."  However, he has not done so. So a demand by non-moderators that Vetus or anyone else make a profession of faith is an example of usurpation of authority, which is in itself a sin, according to Fr. Ripperger.

Simply asking for information is not an usurpation of authority.  Treating a perfectly normal question about one's religion as if it were some sort of unreasonable demand is in itself a problem.  There certainly are settings (job interviews, for example) in which it is improper to ask about religion.  But this is a Catholic forum.  Catholics gather here for the purpose of strengthening each other in faith and enjoying Catholic fellowship with each other.  It does not make sense to act as if questions about one's faith were an offensive personal question.

This peculiar evasiveness on the part of Vetus is strange enough on its own. In addition to this we see some other people acting as if everyone is obliged to accept that Vetus is a Catholic in spite of it.  They seem to think that it horribly rude and judgmental to question whether a person who avoids making an unambiguous statement of faith is, in fact, a Catholic. 

It is true enough that Vetus does not violate any forum rules when he does not make a profession of faith.  But it is unreasonable to expect people to recognize him as a Catholic if he persists in this.  They also do not violate any forum rules who proceed on the assumption that a person who refuses to make a profession of faith is not Catholic.

But really, rules and authority have little to do with this.  Professing faith is simply a basic part of being Catholic and something just seems off about a person who does not do this in a Catholic setting, informal or not.

[Insanis]

I would also point out, while we are on the topic of sin, that lying is a sin.

Publishing a lie could be a very grave matter.

So a demand by non-moderators that Vetus or anyone else make a profession of faith is an example of usurpation of authority, which is in itself a sin, according to Fr. Ripperger.

You have a very strange idea of the kind of "authority" a moderator of a forum may have.

He has last published he was not Catholic and he has not retracted this. He has affirmed a few things, cultural influence of the Church and attending the Mass when there is nothing else available, but that is not a profession of faith.

So, he is not Catholic, because he says he is not.

His published declarations indicate he views Catholic as something other than what the Church teaches.

And as far as sins go, I focus on the basics and don't need to jump through hoops to find a pretense for accusing someone of usurping "authority".