It is currently Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:30 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
 MHFM recent video against John Lane... 
Author Message

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post MHFM recent video against John Lane...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juW14e8 ... HOs-ailqBQ

I did not see if anyone recently addressed this, but I have to say that one statement however, erroneous one makes does not make you a heretic. This is something that the schismatics of MHFM fail to see...

I think John that you went too far in that statement, but that does not make you an "apostate." They are so full of their own righteousness. Very clearly you have manifested the true faith repeatedly over the years, one mistatement clearly does not = apostasy. When someone has the reputation of Orthodoxy and they mispeak once, they are to be given the benefit of the doubt. It is easy for anyone to slip up especially in normal conversation or posting online frequently.

Anyways I just wanted to bring that up so that others might be well aware of the spirit of anti-Pope Novatian that many false sedevacantist schismatics who wilfully break communion with fellow Catholics. Since we have no head right now, we are to preserve the bonds of faith and charity. If Brother's Peter and Michael would be priest, the only people they would give communion to would be each other pretty much...

They do have a lot of interesting material and for that I am grateful, but this is only ammunition for those who have faith already. To those who are uninstructed in the faith, I would not recommend them to watch certain videos of theirs or at the very least point out to them any schismatic errors they might hold during x video they have in their youtube page.

I can almost guarantee that he never attempted to contact you John before posting this online. Contrary to the Biblical mandate which says that at first you should secretly admonish your brother, and then rebuke him publicly... So he a-priori considers you an apostate, before coming to his conclusion which he already held that "this is proof" your an apostate. Very interesting logic, he would definitely have failed by any scholastic standards.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:04 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Can you tell me what they are quoting please? I'm not going to invest the time in watching their video.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:33 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
John Lane wrote:
Can you tell me what they are quoting please? I'm not going to invest the time in watching their video.


It's not worth your time.

June 17: I don't think I'm a better man than Bergoglio, for example. He may well have corresponded with his lights so far, I have no real insight into his upbringing and education. What I do know is that his title puts a significant psychological pressure on Catholics to bend their minds to find a way to think that his naturalism is somehow orthodoxy. And that is terrible, just terrible. This is one of the major factors which has wrecked the faith of so many millions.

I didn't have time to look for the actual topic post. The bolded section is the part they say is heretical. I didn't listen to the whole video because they don't make sense. Since, in their minds, they are the only Catholics left in the entire world, there's not much hope to understand anything they say. Some of their "stuff" is good, but they have the same problem as ETWN: Their good stuff is very much intertwined with their bad stuff. And both the Dimond's and ETWN seem to have more bad stuff than good anyway.


Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:15 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
As far as I am concerned, the Dimond boys are instruments of Satan: they have caused more division and confusion in the Church amongst good Catholics, or those who want to be, than even the Novus Ordo.

Furthermore, they are not, even remotely, any sort of "religious" in any sense of the word. They are not "Brothers" in the Catholic religious-order sense. They chose that title for themselves and are essentially, robbers and thieves "who have entered not by the door".

They accused me, personally, once in an unsolicited telephone call of calling them the "Demon" brothers. I had never, ever, done so, not even privately, up to that point, but since they brought it up, I have to agree with whomever originally said it.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:36 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Ken Gordon wrote:
They accused me, personally, once in an unsolicited telephone call of calling them the "Demon" brothers. I had never, ever, done so, not even privately, up to that point, but since they brought it up, I have to agree with whomever originally said it.


I like your son's "Zirconia Brothers" better. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:43 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Thanks TKGS, much appreciated.

I didn't see that coming, but I should have. Here's an email exchange from a week or two back. Read from the bottom up, of course. I presume that "Chris White" is a Dimond or two.

_______________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: John Lane
Sent: Monday, 21 October 2013 6:03 AM
To: 'Chris White'
Subject: RE: Bellarmine Forums

Dear Mr. White,

I understand. I am the worst man in the world because I have dared suggest that Begoglio is not as bad as me. :)

Regards,
John Lane.


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris White [mailto:sedevacantist@live.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 21 October 2013 1:07 AM
To: John Lane
Subject: Re: Bellarmine Forums

John,

What you wrote is astounding and wicked apostasy. To say that Bergoglio
might be better than you elevates the apostate. It is absurd. Bergoglio
thinks Atheists are "Children of God of the first class." Also, to say
that he may have corresponded with his lights so far, as if he has been
cooperating with God's grace in his apostasy, is itself outrageous
apostasy. God has not given Francis any 'lights' in his apostasy. You
are a wicked heretic and liar who will be exposed publicly for your
disgusting heresies.

Sincerely,

Chris White


-----Original Message-----
From: John Lane
Sent: Sunday, 20 October 2013 8:55 AM
To: 'Chris White'
Subject: RE: Bellarmine Forums

Yes, that was me, Mr. White.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris White [mailto:sedevacantist@live.com.au]
> Sent: Sunday, 20 October 2013 4:43 AM
> To: John Lane
> Subject: Re: Bellarmine Forums
>
> John,
>
> It came to my attention that you posted the following statement some
> months back on the Fisheaters Forum. I was interested to know if this
> was your post or a post by some other 'John Lane'.
>
> John Lane: "Me too, but this is a false dichotomy. I don't think I'm a
> better man than Bergoglio, for example. He may well have corresponded
> with his lights so far, I have no real insight into his upbringing and
> education. What I do know is that his title puts a significant
> psychological pressure on Catholics to bend their minds to find a way to
> think that his naturalism is somehow orthodoxy. And that is terrible,
> just terrible. This is one of the major factors which has wrecked the
> faith of so many millions."
>
> Sincerely,
> Chris White

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:47 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
The appreciation of irony is not the strongest point of these fellows. Did they really think that hiding under a pseudonym to threaten somebody, in private, with public exposure for something he had done in public, under his real name, was likely to produce any effect but amusement?

Now, Jorge, thank you too for bringing this to my attention, and for your kind words. I am interested in knowing what exactly I have said which goes "too far" as you suggest. If I have understood the email I received, it levels two charges - one, that I have "elevated" Bergoglio by favourably comparing him with myself (something which is surely a circular argument anyway!), and two, that I have said that Bergoglio may well have corresponded to his lights. The first being ridiculous, I presume that it's the second of these that concerns you. I'm open to correction as always, but it's hard for me to see, even with the benefit of hindsight, that this is unorthodox. The reality is that Bergoglio may have been raised from youth as an extreme liberal - he certainly gives that impression - and may not in the mean time have received the graces of enlightenment which, if corresponded with, would have converted him. “He may well have corresponded with his lights so far, I have no real insight into his upbringing and education.” Our objection, I was trying to say (and emphasise), is not to his sinfulness, but to his manifest lack of Catholic faith. If the Dalai Lama were declared pope by the Vatican next week, we would not be concerned to demonstrate that he is an apostate, for the obvious reason that he isn't. But he still wouldn't be pope, and it would remain enormously damaging if men thought that he were. Anyway, surely the point was sufficiently clear. Whether it was made within the strict bounds of orthodoxy is open to dispute, but “Chris White” didn’t prove his point. Perhaps he does in his video?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Well in the first place, the quote taken by itself definitely reads as going too far. However, I must make the distinction, that I never understood the context in which it was quoted, and if someone was attempting to trip you up or what the original question was, because it might have after all been you being sarcastic, who knows. This post might seem long to some, but I address it in depth because it affects all Sedevacantists.

Now that you have posted that, I can clearly see it was a demonic attempt to make you seem as something that you clearly are not. I am totally convinced that they are Novatianist, and that they reject the Apostolicity of the Church. Since they teach that there is not even one priest in the world that has the faith left, MUCH less a Bishop... I have never heard or read any article of theirs online addressing the doctrinal problems of this particular stance. I did listen to an interview on Coast to Coast, where one of them was asked by one of the listeners this question and they dodged that question... I would really love to see a video where they address this issue, since they are the Catholic Church, it would be nice to know this particular Dogma :) .

I don't know whether you really meant it, or not. But this is where I think someone can interpret this as going too far if taken in its plain literal sense without any context. I will explain it in more detail below.

Before going any further as someone who has heard MHFM videos several times, read all of their writings... Two things are possible for Mr. Chris White, he is real or fictitious. One thing I know for certain is that this individual (if real) contacted MHFM about what he found out or it was MHFM from the beginning. There are several times that the Dimonds have done this to other individuals, where they "will be exposed" for the heretics that they are. In some cases I would agree with the conclusions they have come up, but not because of their form of reasoning. They did this with Gerry Matatics, who I would agree is a radical schismatic, unfortunately...

Quote:
You are a wicked heretic and liar who will be exposed publicly for your
disgusting heresies.


This definitely sounds like it came from the mouth of either of the Dimond Brother's, or someone that has become exactly like them in their manner of speech which is completely possible if that is the only "Catholicism" left on earth to some of their more faithful followers of the "remnant" Church they have set up for themselves. If you ask them what other person they should listen to, or ask for advice. They will tell you in your face, that there is simply no other person you can recourse to for anything... Any other person you listen to, will be infected with demonic doctrine that stems from the pit of hell. No exceptions...

Quote:
It's not worth your time.


I disagree, this is the same attitude that the Neo-SSPX has had with respect to the concerns of the faithful. No matter how small if a legitimate point has been raised that will concern faithful Catholics, the proper attitude is to respond to it and the quicker the better. It is pride to think that we are above reproach because of whatever credentials we have built up over time or that they are not worth your time. I would agree if it would be on a point that would be on a non-doctrinal matter, but his accusation is indirectly doctrinal. I would not take this so lightly, John represents in a way most Sedevacantist's and this is certainly what they attempted to do is to defame everyone else through John, pretty wicked if you ask me... It will only make things worse, because as can be seen things online travel quickly. It is also important to note that from all the sedevacantist circles and even SSPX traditional circles, they enjoy the greatest viewership. Even their opponents watch them so whatever lies they spread must be addressed properly... The damage is done already because of their extreme lack of charity they should have in the first place contacted John, in a straightforward manner and specifically addressed the issue with him alone. Asked him repeatedly whether he really holds the positions that they accuse him of. Then they should show him precisely what was wrong, and then afterwards they can go public if he would refuse to correct himself. All of this should have been documented and posted online so that everyone would be given context that they attempted to show John the truth.

Given that John has a good reputation among traditional Catholics, because of his good work that he has done (thanks be to God) this defamation is important for their cause, because there are some people that are standing on the fence with respect to explicit BOD/BOB or some of the other legitimate opinions that are Orthodox dealing with BOD/BOB. This is the audience that they are trying to convince... Since things keep getting worse, it only makes them more credible because it is only in chaos that such a spirit can truly survive.

Alright now I can return back to the comment... I am sure that John is well aware of all of this, but this is for the benefit of everyone. There are many things that they were attempting to imply, unless you are very careful it is easy to fall for the bait they give you. Once again I re-iterate, you cannot take a single statement of someone who has tirelessly worked for Catholic tradition and burn them at the stake with such little proof. It is incredible to me how much it takes in the eyes of these Novatianist Brother's to condemn someone to Hell, something they take the prerogative of doing quite often. I wonder if St. Peter still has the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven :shock:, since they know who goes in and goes out :wink:.

John, this statement is clearly indefensible...

Quote:
I don't think I'm a better man than Bergoglio, for example.


Saint Thomas goes over this question, and it is a very delicate fine line. We are talking about the most public apostate naturalist ever known... To suggest an agnostic position on whether Bergoglio might be better then even yourself is wrong at every level. The level of wickedness of this man is unbelievable, however in the eyes of many he has plenty of natural virtues. It matters little whether we know his background, what we know for certain are his deeds/words. His past might only lessen the guilt, but it definitely does not eliminate the sin. We know that by the external forum, despite whatever good intentions he might have he is wicked... You are a Catholic, despite whatever faults/sins you have but that alone makes you better (in the eyes of God) then this other apostate. Who has had innumerable times to recant his statements, but no instead he remains silent to tickle the ears of heretics/media/world. We cannot compare such a public heretic/sinner to even the lowest lowlife scumbag (to borrow a worldly phrase) to this man. It is precisely because of what he represents that even makes matters infinitely worse for him. We know as a fact that he was given even greater lights, given that he has attempted to sit on the temple of God. He has had many years of reflection and years of grace whereby he could have turned back, and yet he has not. I think what John was trying to say is that naturally speaking, he might have more visible natural "virtue." However, as Catholics we are commanded to solely speak in supernatural terms. "If I have not charity, I am nothing" & "Charity believeth all things." Something that this man clearly lacks, is supernatural faith... The problem is that it seems to imply that you were talking about Bergoglio being better in a supernatural sense. It lends the possibility of someone thinking that you might have said that... He never gave you the possibility of clearing that up, and he posted that material despite any objections you might have had... This is clearly bad will of the worst kind, and these guys claim to have all the "good will" in the world. Heck, they seem to have a monopoly on it apparently, because they are capable of being able to tell in a two minute conversation with you, whether or not you are "bad willed" or "good willed."

I think this is where there criticism has a partial grain of truth to it, that many stretch the doctrine of invincible ignorance to such an extent that they make every single heresy self-exculpable. I am not accusing John of doing this, but this is what they are attempting to muster a hurricane inside a little cup of water. So that we can simply claim that who knows if this man was raped in his childhood by some clergyman or whatever other background he has, that might have made him invincibly ignorant or less culpable of being such a heretic. So that he attempted to follow his own conscience according to the circumstances that were given to him etc... We know for certain that God gives the grace to everyone to follow the truth, sometimes it takes many individuals decades to follow that voice because of the hardness of their heart, but this is not something that was lacking from God. There are individuals who in their first time of hearing of Catholic traditional doctrine, they have never gone back despite all the decades inside the Conciliar Church. They were so well disposed to truth, that whenever the Lord sent his emissaries they gladly received them. There are others who having closed themselves to grace through a sinful life etc... It will take much prayer, fasting and penance to soften the hearts of such individuals + years of time + a change of circumstances in life (cancer, disease, death in the family etc...).

Take for example His Lordship Williamson with his mentevacantist theory of the papacy, where modernism is the only heresy which can self-exculpate itself... Yes it is understandable how some will not be able to see and make the necessary steps of logic to see the reality of things, for this they are not going to hell. But those who remain attached to the doctrines of the Conciliarist will be damned for believing in the heresies of the authorities they claim for themselves (this is the danger of sedeplenism). Many sedeplenist are completely resisting internally all the errors of the Conciliarist so that in those particular individuals there is no danger, but this is only true with very few hardline sedeplenist individuals.

We know that many of the Saints thought themselves as dung, and were able to esteem all other men higher then themselves. This is where I think we have to be very careful, I know you have said this before John. That humility is a virtue that is understood by none (false religions) and virtually misunderstood by most Catholics. It is this virtue that is strictly Catholic in both the external and internal dispositions... This virtue is the reason why non-priest have been able to terrorize demons, take St. Paul the Simple, St. Anthony of the Desert, St. Francis of Assisi (a deacon) etc... While every priest despite how holy or unholy they might be, are able to have power over most demons except some that can only be rid of through prayer and fasting (it goes without saying).

http://newadvent.org/summa/3161.htm :
Quote:
Article 3. Whether one ought, by humility, to subject oneself to all men?

...Wherefore without prejudice to humility they may set the gifts they have received from God above those that others appear to have received from Him; thus the Apostle says (Ephesians 3:5): "(The mystery of Christ) was not known to the sons of men as it is now revealed to His holy apostles." On like manner. humility does not require a man to subject that which he has of his own to that which his neighbor has of man's: otherwise each one would have to esteem himself a greater sinner than anyone else: whereas the Apostle says without prejudice to humility (Galatians 2:15): "We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners." Nevertheless a man may esteem his neighbor to have some good which he lacks himself, or himself to have some evil which another has not: by reason of which, he may subject himself to him with humility.


I believe this is the point that John may have been talking about to the other individual, that there are certain qualities which Bergoglio has for example, his simple living which can certainly be emulated with a proper Catholic spirit. We can certainly encourage atheists to do objectively good deeds... So that by sacrificing themselves in a spirit of giving, one day their heart might open to grace and amend their wicked ways of offending Almighty God by denying His very existence! The very act itself, since we cannot judge the internal dispositions is good in itself and all good acts that are done by people who are in mortal sin (even Catholics who are spiritually dead) are still done through actual grace (so that no good deed can ever be done without the grace of God). This is why the Church still encourages her dead members to pray the rosary, so that they might be able to have sincere contrition and amendment of their life. In this manner Bergoglio can be esteemed in this particular deed (simple lifestyle), just like a Muslim that might throw himself to take down another man from being runned over by a train can certainly be an objectively good thing, he saved a life risking his own. That someone does such an act is something that will lead him closer and closer to God, if it is taken in this context it can be understood Orthodoxly. In the hierarchy of truth, Catholics are always better then non-Catholics even if they are sinners. Since it is impossible for non-Catholics to be pleasing to God, and the Catholic who is a sinner has a shot at salvation while the non Catholic 0 chance. Please don't mention the hidden savages in some odd part of the planet, as that is a topic that has been addressed multiple times by theologians. If someone has truly never heard of the Gospel, they cannot be saved since they are not baptized, but they will also not suffer eternal Hell fire if they have never committed a mortal sin. They will not be held accountable for the sin of unbelief in the Trinity, because faith comes by hearing and for whatever reason Divine providence had it that way.

St. Thomas q. 161 article VI, reply to objection 1:

Quote:
It is possible, without falsehood, to deem and avow oneself the most despicable of men, as regards the hidden faults which we acknowledge in ourselves, and the hidden gifts of God which others have. Hence Augustine says (De Virginit. lii): "Bethink you that some persons are in some hidden way better than you, although outwardly you are better than they." Again, without falsehood one may avow and believe oneself in all ways unprofitable and useless in respect of one's own capability, so as to refer all one's sufficiency to God, according to 2 Corinthians 3:5, "Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God." And there is nothing unbecoming in ascribing to humility those things that pertain to other virtues, since, just as one vice arises from another, so, by a natural sequence, the act of one virtue proceeds from the act of another.


Quote:
He may well have corresponded with his lights so far, I have no real insight into his upbringing and education.


Yes, despite whatever biographies someone has written on other people we truly can never know enough to formulate a good perfect judgement on someone (our knowledge is limited), but ultimately what only matters it the external forum for us. We can be safe based on the external forum, and that is the only reasonable thing that can be done... So despite the difficulties and complexities of life, the only thing that a Catholic should be concerned with is the external forum, anything more then that you would need Divine assistance (such as a dream or revelation from above). There are so many different reasons why someone might do something and in the day of judgement it will make all the difference... For example if I jumped a cliff in the hopes of attempting to save another man's life, however stupid it might seem. I believed that it was a possibility, but in the end I ended up falling some huge cliff. It can then be safely assumed I can be given a Catholic burial if there was evidence that it was not a suicide... But what if I change the circumstances... I make a video and I said that life has become too unbearable so I am ending it sooner. I hand write a note, published a video of my jump and as far as everyone is concerned I took my own life. What if there was a group of terrorists that were hijacking my family for some political reason unknown to me, and for some odd strange stupid reason I believed that if I followed their orders they would spare them. I did not wilfully jump myself, I was pushed over in some smart ingenious way, but the video was done so well that this fact is not something discernible unless you look very closely. Based on all that evidence a priest could be able to deny me Catholic burial. You can write all interesting sorts of moral scenarios to illustrate these principles and it all comes down to the external forum at the end of the day. We can wish and hope that halfway through someone jumping a long enough cliff that in that period of time they certainly regret and repent of what they had done.

So to put it simply, Bergoglio in no way has ever corresponded with grace in his apostasy. It is metaphysically impossible for that to happen, he is simply following a malformed un-Catholic conscience, like the mass of men worldwide do. He is more guilty especially since this has been his duty since that is what he wanted to dedicate his life to. This is why he actually bothered to become a priest, or at the very least go through the motions of becoming a priest. He might be a clergyman not sure when he got his minor orders...

Quote:
"What I do know is that his title puts significant psychological pressure on Catholics to bend their minds to find a way to think that his naturalism is somehow orthodoxy. And that is terrible, just terrible. This is one of the major factors which has wrecked the faith of so many millions."


Here I completely agree with what you said, the fact that he is dressed in a white robe, forces most people to ascribe to him Orthodoxy when despite all the evidence the man clearly rejects the faith over and over and over. This is a good thing because it shows the difference between a true Catholic who suffers from ignorance and the Conciliarist modernist who is clearly not a Catholic. Depending on how they react to the apostasy of the modern claimants, it will depend how much closer they are to the truth that these men sit against the temple of God, and not on it.

It is unfortunate what they have attempted to do... Kyrie eleison...

+Pax Christi+

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
My, my, Jorge, you certainly do use an awful lot of words to say what you have said. :lol:

However, I do wish to address certain points in your "tome".

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
They did this with Gerry Matatics, who I would agree is a radical schismatic, unfortunately...

Now, Jorge! Really, you mustn't judge Gerry so harshly: in my opinion, Gerry's main problem is that he was taught to be a Protestant minister, and still (apparently) believes that any thought he has concerning Catholic dogma is correct, even when it isn't. But that alone does not make him a "...radical schismatic..."... only wrong.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Quote:
It's not worth your time.

I disagree,...

Well, I think that for John to directly address those who accused him really is not worth his time. They are most certainly not going to change their opinion. I would tend to agree with you when you suggest that perhaps John could address those effected by that false accusation. It may help them...then again, it may not.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
John, this statement is clearly indefensible...

Quote:
I don't think I'm a better man than Bergoglio, for example.

I don't agree, Jorge. I think I understand the point John was trying to make. However, on the other hand, if we have been given certain graces by God which He has not given to others, to deny those would be terribly ungrateful.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
That humility is a virtue that is understood by none (false religions) and virtually misunderstood by most Catholics. It is this virtue that is strictly Catholic in both the external and internal dispositions...

Well, at least you have this completely correct, Jorge! :lol:

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Ken Gordon wrote:
My, my, Jorge, you certainly do use an awful lot of words to say what you have said. :lol:

However, I do wish to address certain points in your "tome".

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
They did this with Gerry Matatics, who I would agree is a radical schismatic, unfortunately...

Now, Jorge! Really, you mustn't judge Gerry so harshly: in my opinion, Gerry's main problem is that he was taught to be a Protestant minister, and still (apparently) believes that any thought he has concerning Catholic dogma is correct, even when it isn't. But that alone does not make him a "...radical schismatic..."... only wrong.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Quote:
It's not worth your time.

I disagree,...

Well, I think that for John to directly address those who accused him really is not worth his time. They are most certainly not going to change their opinion. I would tend to agree with you when you suggest that perhaps John could address those effected by that false accusation. It may help them...then again, it may not.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
John, this statement is clearly indefensible...

Quote:
I don't think I'm a better man than Bergoglio, for example.

I don't agree, Jorge. I think I understand the point John was trying to make. However, on the other hand, if we have been given certain graces by God which He has not given to others, to deny those would be terribly ungrateful.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
That humility is a virtue that is understood by none (false religions) and virtually misunderstood by most Catholics. It is this virtue that is strictly Catholic in both the external and internal dispositions...

Well, at least you have this completely correct, Jorge! :lol:


:mrgreen: Ahahah my tome.

Well I understand that John does not need to address the issue of any random accuser. Agreed.

However, if it is someone that is high profile it would be a good act of justice to rectify the damage done. Especially because if you have watched the video, this attack comes with an agenda to the majority of Sedevacantists. Please watch it and see for yourself what I mean, don't ignore it. It might slightly raise your blood pressure, but just eat some greens and you will be okay :lol: . He just happens to use John's "apostasy" as proof that all those who believe in explicit BOD/BOB or some other forms of legitimate opinions of BOD/BOB, have 0 faith in Christ and that we lack "supernatural faith" etc...

So yes John I would not take this lightly, as there are so many folks that are growing so weary of Bergoglio that about right now they are ready to listen to anyone and I really do mean anyone... I can tell you that MANY people who were anti-Sedevacantist right now are actually becoming the most fervent Sedevacantists. One of the many reasons why I have been so unable to post often is because of all those who want to talk about these matters, whereas before they were completely not even convinced of tradition. They remember some of the things I told them, and now that they see what is going on it definitely ringed on their ears loudly that something is wrong here. Another friend of mine just joined the bandwagon and lots of indulters that I know have jumped ship also. My Godson just recently changed to the indult and is seriously thinking about leaving that for a SSPX mass because of the whole ordination issue. So there are a lot of people changing their theological position, it would be unfortunate to have them join the Church of Schismatics through MHFM, neo-Novatianism. Never take things like this lightly, they have a consequence and sometimes it can be positive (only to proof to some how diabolical their methods are) and negative (where this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for some). You are not obligated, but I am just giving you my advice that you should address the issue instead of ignoring it especially given how high profile these guys are. They are 24/7 study machines, and this is all they do every day without fail. It is difficult to have the level of dedication that they have, and it is precisely because of this that they have so much influence. If only they used it for the greater glory of God and the Church, instead of advancing their own schismatic spirit.

Gerry Matatics is a schismatic and a heretic, because he denies one of the four marks of the Church, Apostolicity. The only way in which their position will ever make sense is by saying that the Anti-Christ is not only among us, but currently reigning and he will have 3 1/2 years to rule over the world. Why do I say this? Because it is understood that during the reign of the Anti-Christ some Fathers believe that the sacrifice will cease, because all priest will be killed during the greatest bloody persecution the world has ever seen... The problem is not that all priest have been killed, there are plenty of them alive so one should be able to attend mass when one has the possibility of attending. The problem with home aloners is a legalistic (indultish) mentality they strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. However, with Gerry unfortunately there is NOT ONE MASS in the world which is licit to attend for him (it varies with home aloners as far as I am aware Gerry says no masses). I love Gerry very much I have been listening to his talks on the plot against the Church and I am not done yet, but he is seriously mistaken. The man is brilliant he really is, he is a great speaker, apologist and I have always enjoyed his material. Unfortunately, he rejects one point of faith which happens to be in the Nicene Creed. He really does know better, but for some odd reason he refuses to recant... Given how talented he is going to convince many people into home-alonism... Ora, Ora, Ora.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Well, Jorge, I don't think I will "indulge" in viewing the aforementioned video: it would send my BP too high. I really cannot stand those two and their ilk. In my opinion, they have been especially chosen by Satan to sow as much division and trouble in the remnant Church as possible...and they are very good at it. Their arrogance and pride are simply astonishing to behold!

I found it very interesting when asked point-blank if they were YKWs (*), they refused to answer.

However, concerning Gerry, you may be interested to hear that Gerry recently attended the Traditional Mass in Houston, Texas.

As I said, try not to judge until you hear "the latest". :lol:

After all, one of the very nice things about being Catholic is that we are not required to judge. :)

(* You Know Who)

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:38 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
I am more then willing to retract my statements on Gerry, wow I am overjoyed to hear about that. Can you personal message me about that? When did he change his stance about that?

I love Gerry like you have no idea it really made me sad when I heard about his home-alonism... This was during my sedeplenist days, it was not even his SV'ism that bothered me because at that time I had already started to seriously consider that I might be completely wrong on the matter. I just prayed that God would send me an objectively clear sign about this issue which I have been wrestling with since I started the faith. When I started attending Catechism and I heard about anti-Pope John Paul II's actions I told myself that this man cannot be Pope. This was shortly after first holy communion! Later I deferred my opinion to that of the SSPX priest, because I knew that I had studied a whole lot more then I have on the matter. So I just took their word for it, but ohh boy have I struggled with it. What finally did it for me was the fact that all the theologians were debating on the pope heretic thesis agreed, that the non-Christian cannot be in any way Pope, because he who is not a member of the Church cannot be its head. Now I know many have heard of this many many times, but I know for certain that Bergoglio is not even a Christian... You see the other claimants at the very least pretended to the least degree possible.

Gerry has a lot of good potential and can do a lot of good. I certainly continue to pray for him, and if what you are saying is true. Then I completely retract my statement as it would no longer be true. I joyfully retract it, is there any audio or link?

:D I would certainly love to hear it. I would love if he would teach as a Professor in the Sedevacantists Seminaries out there, he certainly has the linguistical background and experience on his belt to do so.

I was really thinking a while back to study under his tutelage especially Greek and Hebrew, in his St. Jerome Study Center that he had in his home. However, because of his stance's it was a no-no for me since I love the faith more then particular personages. I pray that you are right, Deo gratias.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:08 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Dear Jorge,

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Two things are possible for Mr. Chris White, he is real or fictitious.


I am reliably informed that he is real - an Australian convert who has become a Dimond disciple (why does that sound vaguely Amway?)

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Quote:
It's not worth your time.


I disagree, this is the same attitude that the Neo-SSPX has had with respect to the concerns of the faithful. No matter how small if a legitimate point has been raised that will concern faithful Catholics, the proper attitude is to respond to it and the quicker the better. It is pride to think that we are above reproach because of whatever credentials we have built up over time or that they are not worth your time. I would agree if it would be on a point that would be on a non-doctrinal matter, but his accusation is indirectly doctrinal.


Jorge, there's no doctrinal point to answer, yet. Very simply, nobody has written and said, "You have contradicted Teaching X of the Church." All you have done so far is say I have "gone too far". That doesn't even hint at which dogmatic truth I am supposed to have rejected.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
It is also important to note that from all the sedevacantist circles and even SSPX traditional circles, they enjoy the greatest viewership. Even their opponents watch them so whatever lies they spread must be addressed properly...


Jorge, I have hardly read a word they have written, ever, and I think I may have watched one of their videos many years ago, so I am probably not a good judge of their popularity, but I seriously doubt your own assessment. In any case, even if people read them, hardly anybody takes them seriously.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
John, this statement is clearly indefensible...

Quote:
I don't think I'm a better man than Bergoglio, for example.

That's the part that I thought nobody could honestly (or rationally) take exception to! I simply said that I am not judging him. That's actually all that I said, in that sentence. "I don't think I'm a better man than Bergoglio, for example." Further, I think that was crystal clear in the original context, as it is now, deprived of context.

I did not write, "Bergoglio is a better man than I," as a matter of fact. My point was purely negative. I'm not judging his goodness, as such. I am merely assessing whether the man is a Catholic, and I think it's clear that he isn't.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Saint Thomas goes over this question, and it is a very delicate fine line.

Jorge, it's such a fine line I don't think you have stated, at any point, where it is and in what way I have stepped over it. I've read, some years ago, the entire section of the Summa from which you have quoted in this post, and I will now go and re-read it to see if I have failed to grasp St. Thomas's doctrine, but at this stage I don't think so.

The fact is that I have not said, or implied, that Bergoglio is a better man than I in every respect. But even if I had said that, I'd not be a heretic, I'd be in error. I'm better looking than him, for a start.

The sentence that I would have thought was under the microscope is, "He may well have corresponded with his lights so far, I have no real insight into his upbringing and education." Not because I have failed to remain within the external forum, as you suggest, but because the way it is formulated it could be taken as implying that Bergoglio, a former Catholic, has corresponded with all of the graces of enlightenment he has ever received, which is impossible. I don't for a moment think that anybody really would think that was what I was saying, but I do think that a pedant could at least mount his case based upon that interpretation, yet it doesn't appear to be what is being alleged.

But anyway, let me rest with this: my entire point was that we are not the judges of his soul, that is, of anything in the internal forum, but rather, that all Catholics are obliged to assess his claim to the papacy, and that forces us to assess whether or not he is a Catholic. This is a matter entirely within the external forum, and does not (directly) touch upon any question of sin, as such. I suppose you are aware that the question whether or not a man can leave the Church without mortal sin is actually a legitimate dispute amongst theologians? Anyway, I take the view that such a thing is impossible, but if I took the other view I'd not be able to be accused of any theological fault for that. The point being, it is quite possible, and actually normal, to assess whether another is a Catholic without in any way touching upon their subjective sinfulness or virtue as such. Indeed, our entire spirit ought to be to strive always to avoid any such thing.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:33 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Jorge, I've re-read Article 3 of Q. 161 of II-II, and I'd be in conflict with it if I said or implied that, for example, Bergoglio is my superior in outward faith. That is, I would be placing what I have of God's beneath what Bergoglio claims to have of God's, but which he does not - the profession of faith. This, says St. Thomas, would be unlawful. But the whole thrust of that discussion was that Bergoglio is not a Catholic, so that notion is impossible to take from what I said.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:50 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Ken Gordon wrote:
However, on the other hand, if we have been given certain graces by God which He has not given to others, to deny those would be terribly ungrateful.


It would, and St. Thomas says in II-II, Q. 161, Art 3, that it would be erroneous too. He says that we can know that we have received certain graces, and we ought not to deny them (but rather, as you say, to be grateful for them). But he is also careful to say that we can be "subject" to all men interiorly, without putting on any show of humility, and surely the same is true, a fortiori, with most of the graces we have received.

This particular question of the Summa is actually very apropos. Bergoglio's great theme is that he is above the graces and offices he has or purports to have; that the priesthood and the papacy are his to dispose of as he wills; that he can place the Catholic priesthood, for example, by his own actions and words, below things that belong properly below it. That is why all instructed Catholics instinctively react against his faux humility. Here it is explained by a Catholic lady from Argentina, Lucrecia Rego de Planas, in an open letter to Bergoglio:

Quote:
When I first met you during these retreats, when you were still Cardinal Bergoglio, I was struck and puzzled that you never acted like the other cardinals and bishops. To give some examples: you were the only one there that did not genuflect before the tabernacle or during the Consecration, if all the bishops presented themselves with their cassocks and their clerical garb, because that was required by the necessary rules for the meeting, you will presented yourself in suit and clerical collar. If all of you were sitting on the seats reserved for the bishops and cardinals, you left empty the place of Cardinal Bergoglio and you sat in back, saying "I'm fine here, so I feel more at ease."If others came with a vehicle that corresponds to the dignity of a bishop, you had arrived after the others, busy and in a hurry, telling aloud your encounters in public transport in order to come to the meeting. Seeing these things - I am ashamed in telling this - I said to myself: - "Phew ... who wants to attract attention! Because, if you want to be truly humble and simple, is it not better to behave like the other bishops to go unnoticed? ". Even some of my Argentine friends who attended these meetings, somehow noticed my confusion, and I said - "No, you're not the only one. We all were always puzzled, but we know that clear criteria, and in speeches show convictions and certainties always faithful to the Magisterium and the Tradition of the Church, it is a brave loyal defender of right doctrine ... Apparently, however, loves to be loved by all and please everyone. In this sense could one day make a speech on TV against abortion and the next day, in the same TV show, bless the pro-abortion feminists in the Plaza de Mayo, could make a wonderful speech against masons and, hours later, eat and drink with them at the Club Rotary Club. "

My dear Papa Francesco, it is true, this was the card. Bergoglio I knew closely. One day, intent on chatting animatedly with Bishop Duarte Aguer in the defense of life and of the liturgy and the same day, at dinner, chatting animatedly with always Ysern Bishop and Bishop Rosa Chavez on base communities and the terrible obstacles that represent "the dogmatic teachings "of the Church. One day a friend of the Cardinal Cipriani and Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga to talk about business ethics and against the ideologies of the New Age and a little later a friend of Casaldáliga and Boff to talk about class struggle and the "wealth" that the techniques could donate to the Eastern Church.

With this in mind, you will understand that I with greatly widened his eyes when I heard your name after the '"We Have a Pope" and from that moment (before you ask) I have prayed for you and for my beloved Church. And I have not stopped doing it for a single day since then. When I saw you on the balcony, without miter, without cape, breaking the protocol of greeting and the reading of the Latin text, with this trying to differentiate yourself from the rest of the Popes in history, smiling, worried, I said to myself: "Yes, without a doubt. This is the Cardinal Bergoglio. " In the days following your election, you gave me a number of occasions to confirm that you are the same person I had known closely, always looking for a diversity: you asked for different shoes, a different ring, a different Cross , a different chair and even room and home different from the rest of Popes that always had been content humbly with those things provided, without the need of "special" things, especially for them.

[From: http://triregnum.blogspot.com.au/2013/1 ... -from.html ]

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Dear John,

I guess if you want me to classify what you said in a theological note. It would have to fall under offensive to pious ears, and that would be worst case scenario. It goes without saying that there are several forms of scandal, and this type of scandal is what is called the scandal of the weak. Offensive to pious ears would mean, when verbal expression is such as rightly to shock the Catholic sense and delicacy of faith. Which is what I said for having gone too far, it is simply silly to suggest you are an "apostate" because of it. It is abundantly clear that you could have simply chosen better words, but that alone does not make you anything. You clearly reject whatever meaning he has imposed upon you, so that even supposing you did intend to mean what he said about you. It would be null and void, as it is possible for good Catholics to mispeak etc... Their approach is CLEARLY against the law of the Church, their approach is guilty until proven innocent no exceptions. So that they are judge, jury and executioner similar to Richard Ibryani's approach to things. He clearly learned at the feet as a good disciple of the Dimond brothers, which unfortunately foment a schismatic reality into their modified version of "pure" Catholics or "Cathari."

I know that there is nothing doctrinal to answer, which is why I said indirectly thus it would be good to correct whatever misconception he has attempted to accuse you of even if it is false... What he has said has to be refuted, despite it being incorrect. Many folks right now who would have dismissed MHFM outright previously are starting to have a change of heart. They have their telephone lines open 24/7, written several books which are cheaply available at 0 profit, they are dedicated and put out plenty of material very often. Even if they are wrong, it is precisely for their zeal that most people tend to listen to them, call it self-righteousness or whatever you would like. But certain people detect in them consistency and honesty. With the exception of a few radical schismatics who would think of them as being hypocritical for attending sacraments of heretics, other then that crowd for the most part they have a very similar message to that of SV'ist & SSPX, with the exception of their EENS issue. So they say a lot of truth, but 1% poison is worse then 30% because it is a whole lot more subtle to be able to detect. Once it infects the mind of the listener they become fully convinced slowly that they are right. Only to later learn from their Sola Denzingerite methods which is a semi-Protestant approach to exegesis of Catholic doctrine.

On scandal of the weak and the pharisees,
Summa II-II a. 43 q. 7 on Whether spiritual goods should be foregone on account of scandal? Comments in Red:

Quote:
Again a distinction seems necessary among spiritual things which are not necessary for salvation: because the scandal which arises from such things sometimes proceeds from malice, for instance when a man wishes to hinder those spiritual goods by stirring up scandal. This is precisely what MHFM is doing because it proceeds forth from malice, the Catholic Church has nothing to benefit from their observation which is done only to hinder the spiritual good which has come from the work of SV'ist who believe in BOD/BOB. This is the "scandal of the Pharisees," who were scandalized at Our Lord's teaching: and Our Lord teaches (Matthew 15:14) that we ought to treat such like scandal with contempt. Sometimes scandal proceeds from weakness or ignorance, and such is the "scandal of little ones." On order to avoid this kind of scandal, spiritual goods ought to be either concealed, or sometimes even deferred (if this can be done without incurring immediate danger), until the matter being explained the scandal cease. If, however, the scandal continue after the matter has been explained, it would seem to be due to malice, and then it would no longer be right to forego that spiritual good in order to avoid such like scandal.


Quote:
I'm better looking than him, for a start.


:lol: Will the Bellarmine Forum magisterium vote on that issue :P ? John you have my vote on that one :o .

We might do well by using this as our criteria to judge that question.

"Beauty is essentially the object of intelligence, for what knows in the full meaning of the word is the mind, which alone is open to the infinity of being. The natural site of beauty is the intelligible world: thence it descends. But it falls in a way within the grasp of the senses, since the senses in the case of man serve the mind and can themselves rejoice in knowing: ‘the beautiful relates only to sight and hearing of all senses, because these two are maxime cognoscitivi’(Maritain, 23)."

Maritain, Jacques. Art and Scholasticism. Translated by J. F. Scanlan. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930.

Quote:
I suppose you are aware that the question whether or not a man can leave the Church without mortal sin is actually a legitimate dispute amongst theologians?


Now with respect to this point, I have to say this is a first I have heard about this. All non members of the Church are ipso facto in mortal sin, or did I misunderstand that? Well what I always thought is in the affirmative that non-members (specifically talking about those who were members of the Church and then later apostastized) are in mortal sin. Maybe you can elaborate more on that point?

Quote:
I do think that a pedant could at least mount his case based upon that interpretation, yet it doesn't appear to be what is being alleged.


Have you seen the video yet John? If not please watch it, it can be kind of helpful to know what you are being accused, you are being used as a tool to attack all of us BOD/BOB'ers. Don't forget to eat your greens 8) .

Quote:
but because the way it is formulated it could be taken as implying that Bergoglio, a former Catholic, has corresponded with all of the graces of enlightenment he has ever received, which is impossible.


This is precisely what they claim you have done, which is why I keep insisting. Hope that helps.

Quote:
...we are not the judges of his soul, that is, of anything in the internal forum


Agreed.

+Pax vobis+

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:38 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
What he has said has to be refuted, despite it being incorrect.

I think I've refuted it, and you affirm as much by saying right here that it is clear that I do not hold whatever it is that is being alleged.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Quote:
I suppose you are aware that the question whether or not a man can leave the Church without mortal sin is actually a legitimate dispute amongst theologians?


Now with respect to this point, I have to say this is a first I have heard about this. All non members of the Church are ipso facto in mortal sin, or did I misunderstand that? Well what I always thought is in the affirmative that non-members (specifically talking about those who were members of the Church and then later apostastized) are in mortal sin. Maybe you can elaborate more on that point?


Simply that all Protestants are regarded by the Church as non-Catholics from age 14 (or beginning of their 14th year - I can't recall which) yet she also tolerates in certain circumstances that when a Protestant convert is being received, he is only conditionally absolved of the excommunication etc. for heresy. So, arguably she tolerates the notion that a man might have ceased being a member but not sinned in doing so. There's another possible explanation, which is that such a man has never ceased being a member, and the Church's presumption in this case yields to fact, or, more properly, would yield to fact if the fact were established, which is my own view, but nevertheless the debate is legitimate, as far as I know.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
Have you seen the video yet John?

No, I see no need, if you have told me what's in it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:14 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
John Lane wrote:
I suppose you are aware that the question whether or not a man can leave the Church without mortal sin is actually a legitimate dispute amongst theologians?


Now with respect to this point, I have to say this is a first I have heard about this. All non members of the Church are ipso facto in mortal sin, or did I misunderstand that? Well what I always thought is in the affirmative that non-members (specifically talking about those who were members of the Church and then later apostastized) are in mortal sin. Maybe you can elaborate more on that point?


I came across this in the course of general reading the other day, and it illustrates the point nicely I think.

"First there are heretics who, by birth or conversion, were at one time members of the Church, but who became heretics by a personal act of disbelief, or doubt, thereby abandoning relations with the Church to which they had previously belonged. There are many such cases. Some lose their Catholic faith through educational processes, in which they imbibe anti-Catholic or anti-religious ideas from teachers, books, etc. Others sacrifice their membership in the Church for reasons of worldly advantage, or for fear of temporal loss and difficulties. While some may be in good faith, it may be generally presumed that these heretics were fully conscious of the sin they committed when they definitely left the Church or abandoned belief in her teachings." (The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, CUA, Tradibooks, 2009, by Rev. Eric F. MacKenzie p. 28. Emphasis added.)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: MHFM recent video against John Lane...
Quote:


I'm better looking than him, for a start.


Yes, but please be aware that this could be said by 98% of the planet. You've set a rather low bar. :P


Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:04 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.