Featured Post

The Kingdom of Católica America Series

Here is a list of all posts from The Kingdom of Católica America series.  Just follow the links.  There are more to come in the future, and ...

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Seems that I was banned from Suscipe Domine again

I got banned from SD again this week.  Apparently, I didn't notice until after the ban was over.

"Yeeessss!  We banned Hirschie again!"

After bowing out of a series of baits, a particular thread was allowed to go on for two full days until LouisIX decided to get all uppety and ban me, much to the delight of the sedevacantist fringe over there.

In so many words, I have expressed my disappointment, and I stated just how dishonest I consider the entire vindictive affair.  Poor moderation, that.  I blame them completely.

But I suppose since everyone's hankering for more talk about sedevacantism, heretical priests, corrupt clergy and whatnot, I found a nice couple of paragraphs where Barnhardt lays it on the line for anyone confused about our lackluster situation in the Church.  Emphasis is mine:

I also received an email from a guy who was confirmed by Bernardin back in the day. He said the only thing any of them remembered about the Mass was how super-creepy Bernardin was. Of course, “super-creepy” is how children process and describe sodomites, both male and female. But this brings up a point about the heresy of Donatism, which is alive and well today. Donatism basically says that the state of the soul of the priest affects the validity of the sacraments he performs. WRONG. 100% wrong. First, we’re ALL sinners, so if the validity of a sacrament was tied to the soul of the priest, there would be no valid sacraments performed ever, anywhere. If you want to talk about God’s infinite mercy, here it is. Bernardin’s Masses, so long as they were said properly, were valid. As was the confirmation of the fellow who emailed me. There are people who were married by sodomite priests who raped teenaged boys, and these couples, when they found out about the priests, doubted that their marriages were valid. YES, those marriages are absolutely valid. How in the world would it make sense for Our Lord to hold lay people responsible so as to WITHDRAW HIMSELF from those truly seeking Him because of the sins of the priest, which were unknowable at the time to the people? What about priests who keep concubines? Those priests are in mortal sin more often than not, while saying Mass. The effects on the souls of the priests offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass while in mortal sin are horrific and real – as they are for ANYONE who receives the Eucharist whilst in mortal sin. This is why St. Paul warns so strongly against receiving the Eucharist unworthily in 1 Corinthians 11 – because as Voltaire told his student, the quickest way to extinguish faith and deaden the conscience is to receive Our Lord in mortal sin. But no matter how unworthy the priest may be, those consequences are justly limited to him, NOT unjustly applied to the recipients of the sacraments he confects. God is not an irrational, arbitrary tyrant. He is perfectly just, and perfectly rational, and He loves us and will allow a satan-worshiping sodomite like Bernardin to call Him down onto the altar in his hands – so He can be with us. Get your mind around that and you have officially pondered the first drop in the ocean of His Mercy and Love for us.

Aiming more towards the sedevacantists, we have this one.  Earlier in Barnhardt's post, she states the following.  Emphasis hers:

As the Francis pontificate grinds on, with seemingly each day bringing some double-face palm horror, it seems to me that Our Lord is using this as perhaps one last big sifting, or sorting, to see who REALLY gets it, who really loves Him personally and not as a mere philosophy or legal system, and is going to stick with Him. Again, I think the cancer analogy is very helpful here. If your wife was diagnosed with cancer, would you immediately move out? File for divorce? Because, hey, I didn’t marry someone with cancer, and therefore you are no longer the person I married, right? Nope. Stay in the boat. Because schism only breeds more schism. And besides, that’s exactly what they want you to do. They want you out, because if you’re out, well, for lack of a better phrase… YOU’RE OUT. It is going to be an absolute mess, and Our Lord says this repeatedly in scripture (sorting of sheep from goats, the sorting of the catch in the nets, the weeds growing among the crop, people crying out, “Lord, Lord” and being escorted to hell because “I never knew you”.) Also, we have Our Lady warning us of all of this repeatedly, Fatima and Quito being the two most prominent instances. Bottom line, none of this should be a surprise, and thus we should all be confirmed and “dug in”, with the thought of abandoning Our Lord, or really withdrawing from Him and His Church in any way, to be not just unthinkable, but in diametric opposition to the very circumstances and responses we have been anticipating and preparing ourselves for.

Barnhardt really is cool.  I check her site just about every week.

There's two types of people splitting themselves away from the Heart of the Church that Christ founded with Peter: the extreme left wing and the extreme right wing.  Gay mass types, and sedevacantists.  Both work to break apart the Church from the inside, and it all makes the Holy Church look terrible to all of the outsiders who are not Catholic.  Both groups are not a part of the solution, but a part of the problem.

10 comments:

  1. I think people separate themselves from the Heart of the Church through pharisaism and sins against charity just as much, if not more, than those who sin against the Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Laramie,

    We made a new rule concerning dogmatic sedevacantism/sedeplenism and gave ample time, warnings, clarification, and lenience for people to comply with said rule. You broke it twice and received a one day ban that you didn't even notice. You are now welcome back to post at the forum.

    Is that really worth all of this? Stop playing the victim card and assuming it's all some big "vindictive affair". If you break the rules, you get banned. That's it.

    We want you to contribute at SD. Let it go and jump back in.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh man. You're going to make me go through this? I mean, every time I try to clarify how I'm handling things on Suscipe Domine, reading comprehension goes down to zero and everyone misses my point. Well, except for those who message me and keep in touch, that is.

    Plus, what in the world are you doing by posting this on a public message board? Can't you take Archer's advice and PM me on Suscipe Domine, or though here? Follow enough links, and you will find my contact information. This ain't discrete. But whatevs. We can put this stuff up in public record if you want.

    I really am tired of having these little struggles on SD. I was actually going to just let it go. Just as I tried to let it go in the contested thread in question…until you, LouisIX, baited me. That was low for a moderator.

    Victim card? What are you talking about? When Laramie Hirsch gets banned, it's Laramie Hirsch news. Of course I'm going to post it over here at homebase! Why wouldn't I? Even if I got banned for cussing or something. "Vindictive affair?" You bet. You got some fellas on your forum who are REAL hungry to shut up the "dogmatic sedeplenist." That way, they can go on in their error in peace, passive aggressively, with no opposition.

    The thread I created on SD, "Banning Laramie Hirsch," was not about banning me. It was about moderator failure. I implemented the advice that Archer preached at me BEFORE any of the nonsense happened. I contacted Kaesekopf in a Private Message, asked that the initial thread be moved to the proper folder, and I told him about how tired I was of the baiting that took place—which included you LouisIX.

    The whole incident brings up a small handful of topics, and I doubt that all of the points will even be addressed by you or anyone else. Archer says that my "rant" implied that I'm accusing people of conspiracy on SD. I am not; though I AM saying that the wind is blowing in a certain direction.

    I'm eager to just move on with life, as I have a ton of other things to do that interest me that I never talk about online. But if we must wade into these waters, let's just start with this one simple easy-to-answer question for you LouisIX:

    Did you, or did you not bait me?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I did not bait you at all. And, even if I had, you were not banned (again for only one day, mind you) for arguing or being snarky with me. You were banned for not following the rules on dogmatic sedeplenist/sedevacantism.

    As far as you're being incredulous that I posted here, I will say only that I am responding to you in kind. You don't want it public? You made it public. You came here on your public blog and mentioned me by name. And now you want me to respond only to you in private?

    If you want to keep this private then instead of throwing my name out here, YOU come and PM me. Otherwise, I'm going to defend myself and our forum in public, so that your readers see that there are two sides to your story.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello again, LouisIX.

     

    Point #1

    Me: “Did you or did you not bait me?”

    LouisIX: “I did not bait you at all, and even if I had…”

    Okay.  I guess we shall simply disagree on this one.  Because when someone says “That’s it, eh?” (A shortened version of “Is that all you got?”), I take it to be a bait to get me arguing more with you.  Perhaps it doesn’t strike you as plainly as it does me. 

    Moving on.  Next point. 

     

    Point #2

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you could not understand I was trying to graciously back out of the arguments in the thread.  I am aware of the sensitivities of a handful of people on SD to the subject of “sedevacantism as a schism.”  They just don’t like to hear it, and a lot of people tire of hearing me talk about it.  And again, there were more important things on my mind that week, such as Iraq as well as the black mass in OKC.

    But yes, I was trying to give up the floor.  Because I’m a nice guy.  J

    I probably was not blunt enough in that thread—too subtle perhaps—in trying to “bow out.”  I said: “I don't have time to argue ad nauseam with men locked into the mindset that it's good and acceptable to abandon Christ during His agony.”  I was far less blunt in that thread than the last pile-on-witchhunt with Jayne and gang.  On Witchunt Wednesday, no matter how many times I told the opponents to change to a new thread, they locals just wouldn’t back off! 

    http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8163.0 

    I am glad that others saw that the henpecking was getting out of hand and that the thread was locked.

     

    Point #3

    I am not incredulous that you are posting here!  I am happy to have you here!  Please, fell free to stretch out your legs!  Any disagreements or items that you cannot bring up on SD are permitted here.  No worries.  This place is for you and everyone!  And don’t worry; I am hopeful we will get past this.

    I am fine with this discussion being public.  I am a little surprised that you also don’t mind our conversation being public.  Taken aback, as it were.  Because typically, SD moderators do not like to hash out person-to-person issues openly on the forum as you and I are now.  All that I said was: “This ain’t discrete, but whatevs.”     

    I’m neither incredulous that you are here, nor am I bothered that our discussion is public.  I admit freely that I am lazy in wanting to hash this out.  We are investing more time than usual in discussing how I think I was wronged in a thread.  But no worries.  Explicating the conversation—dissecting it—can be a useful exercise.  We are merely strengthening our reading comprehension (I hope) in this discussion.  At least, that’s how I view it. 

    * * *

    Anyway, I’ll leave it at that for now.  Three points is enough.  I know we are dancing around the main attraction—your stated reason for my banning.  But I feel that thread failed on many levels due to CUMULATIVE wrongs.

     

    A new question:

    Was I right to PM Kaesekopf, inform him that I wanted to avoid a thread that was becoming a baiting witchhunt, and ask him to at least move the thread to the appropriate “Sedevacantist Thesis” folder?  Was I right to do that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Point #1:

      I will give you that my response was snarky, but I wasn't attempting to bait you. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "bait" anyway. Do you mean that I was trying to get you to break a rule or merely that I was trying to make you mad? I was not trying to do either.

      Point #2:

      I don't really have much to say. It wasn't whether or not you were bowing out that warranted the ban but one of your actual posts while you were still contributing.

      Point #3:

      The SD moderators usually like to hash things out in PM. This does not necessarily mean that we have an aversion to hashing things out in public. We just do not want threads derailed by back-and-forths between two people. PM gives us a place to do that without having the whole forum as an audience, which is often times unnecessary.

      I replied to you here because you first posted here so I thought it fitting for me to respond here. If you had sent me a PM, I would have responded there. In many ways, I would have appreciated a PM simply because you were obviously upset with me and we could have hashed it out rather than being alerted that you were speaking about me on your blog. But it's your blog and you can write what you want, of course.

      I do hope that this blows over. As I said before, you're not banned from SD any longer and thus you are quite welcome to be posting there.

      Delete
  6. As to your last question, you are free to PM KK anything you want. It just may not be met with the exact response for which you are hoping.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Back to Point #1:

    You: “I’m not entirely sure what you mean by ‘bait’ anyway.”

    When people tease others, it leads to them lashing out or arguing back in a strong and emotional manner. I do not see any other reason people do it than to reach that end. Why try to get me riled up or be snarky if you, as a moderator in a leadership role, are trying to steer the thread into a reasonable direction?

    Back to Point #2:

    I was trying to be cooperative with how moderators would have wanted me to conduct myself. That is the point. SD is friendly to sedes—I backed away. Should have made everyone happy. Not gotten me a ban.

    Back to Point #3:

    I’ve been claiming that on a public forum, something went wrong. You and I are directly involved. It is a matter of interest to the community, should they want to explore what happened and is happening to the forum, this conversation will offer them explanations.

    Point #4

    I know that I am “free to PM KK” anything I want. But my question was, “was it right?” Was I right to follow protocol, as it were, and try to contact someone who was in charge?

    ***
    I’m running out of time this weekend, so let’s finally hit the main point now.
    ***

    Point #5

    You, LouisIX, have directly and indirectly given me a few explanations as to why I was banned after that thread:

    1. While I was banned, you said it was because I called sedevacantists crazy and that I implied sedevacantism is inferior.

    2. In the thread, I said: “I never claimed to be an apologetical authority against this schizmatic ERROR.”

    After RobertJS and Mysterium Fidei complained about my sentence, you said:

    “Just because Laramie's post hasn't been disciplined yet does not mean that it will not be.”

    3. You claim that I broke some new rules where you state:

    “Catholics are free to hold varying opinions on the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar papacies. Any posts which claim or even imply a superiority in the faithfulness or orthodoxy of Catholics who hold a varying opinion on the state of the papacy will be subject to discipline.”

    So, okay. I HOLD THE OPINION that the sedevacantists are wrong and that the “post conciliar” Church is legitimate and that the sedevacantist movement is illegitimate, thus maintaining that the current Roman Catholic Church is superior and the sedevacantists who separate themselves from Her are inferior—and YOU STATE THAT IT IS OKAY to hold that opinion (the first sentence from where I quoted you).
    YET…You then state that TO CLAIM OR IMPLY THAT OPINION—that the current Roman Catholic Church is superior and sedevacantism is inferior—is subject to discipline.
    So which is it? Can I say it or not? Are sedes on SD free to claim superiority over the current Roman Catholic Church, but the “dogmatic sedeplenist” has to shut up? They imply the “conciliar church” is inferior, after all. I mean, I’ve been holding my tongue on starting a thread about sedevacantism since February, but whenever I even MENTION my opinion in a single sentence, the “Jane and Gang Witchunt Club” comes out of the woodwork to goad the hell out of me.

    And ultimately, for which of these three points I’ve mentioned were you disciplining me? #1, #2, or #3? Was it my wording when I nicknamed the “Sedevacantist Thesis” folder the “I’m-a-crazy-sede folder?” Was it when I called sedevacantism a “schismatic ERROR?” Or was it because I just generally claim that the Roman Catholic Church is superior to sedevacantism? Which of these three things broke a rule to get you to ban me for a day?
    This has been unclear. I’ve listed three different reasons that you decided I should be disciplined. Some folks think I was banned because SD is simply cozying up to sedevacantism, groupthink is taking over, and that the SD community doesn’t like how I come off.

    Let us delve into these questions and get closer to a conclusion on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You were banned for calling sedes "crazy", not for calling them schismatic.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I mockingly called the "Sedevacantist Thesis" folder the "I'm-a-crazy-sede" folder. I did not call sedes crazy, per se. But I'm just splitting hairs at this point. Fine. I was banned because I called sedes crazy.

    But the point of all this--the five points of contention and whatnot--is that from my perspective, I've been caught in a jungle of uncertainty in regards to what conduct is acceptable in regards to me. I claim there have been more than a few mixed signals coming from moderators, particularly in regards to that thread. I covered what I considered to be mixed signals. You seem to have addressed them to the extent you are comfortable with. If you are ready to drop the conversation, then that's fine.

    ReplyDelete