PSA: Stowaway Comments Have Been Liberated!

Just now I was tending to my spam folder–a monthly-or-so ritual–and I noticed that a few comments had been blocked on this post from last week. I don’t know why they got filtered, but I think since I tightened my general filters to deal with The Shadow around New Year’s, things can get a bit screwy with automatic comment moderation.

Now, given the nature of the topic, and the contestants involved, I am ruefully aware that this will look like proof of some fascist conspiracy on my part, but please be assured that I have nothing to hide.


About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to PSA: Stowaway Comments Have Been Liberated!

  1. Murray (mgl) says:

    Free Dave Armstrong!

  2. Branch says:

    I believe I’ve now seen it all!

    Are you ready…

    In a comment on this point (, a Scott Woltze says:

    “I once had a supernatural experience while looking at a photo of Enzo Bianchi’s ally, Andrea Riccardi of the St. Egidio Community. I wanted to know who he was and so searched online, read a short bio, and found a photo. In the photo I saw an immense evil behind his smile. Now what does a person take from this? That he has a secret (or not so secret) agenda and is a traitor to the faith? No. Rather, that demons were the source of this “private revelation”, and were playing to my own biases by exciting a reaction of hidden evil when I looked at the photo.

    I figured out that demons have this ability seven years ago when I bought a large, framed copy of the famous painting of St. Francis by Cimabue. One day I walked in the door, saw the painting, and it appeared as the most ugly, ghastly picture of a human I had ever seen. Yeah, demons hate St. Francis that much… A similar dynamic has afflicted Steve Skojec and dozens of his readers. When they saw Pope Francis first step out onto the balcony after his election, they saw a shadow of evil, felt discomfort and even revulsion. That’s an old trick of demons. The demons knew that Pope Francis would not be their idea of a good, faithful pope, and so they planted an early seed in the hopes of later sprouting dissension and acrimony. Mission accomplished–score another point one for the powers of darkness. May God forgive me for being too lazy/pessimistic to try to explain this to Steve and his readers…”

  3. ABS has a monkey side table and when he read the interesting experiences of Mr Woltze, the monkey turned into a man and he began to sing and dance.

    ABS could explain to Mr. Woltze that hallucinations and projections of the experience of hallucinations onto others is not a sign of mental health but ABS suspects that Mr. Woltze would be reluctant to hear that.

  4. I claim no conspiracy and accept the explanation. But last time we had a controversy I was basically asked to get lost and to cease posting in the thread since my comments were supposedly so dumb and repetitious. Then the post under consideration was password-protected so I couldn’t access it anyway (I don’t know if that has been lifted since; haven’t bothered to check).

    So I fail to see how in spirit that mentality is any different from simply blocking someone altogether. Now I’ve been classified as an “idiot” by the Big Cheese in this venue (conditional on other factors — as he needlessly reiterated –, which are not true, in any event, but still claimed to be true here). Like that doesn’t poison any conceivable discussion, even if I wanted to hang around? LOL

    Only Tony has shown himself completely civil (i.e., “normal”) in demeanor and able to engage in rational discussion about the issues I dealt with (and Murray was fair-minded about admitting that he had unfairly read me through the lens of another). But I told Tony (in a PM discussion) that what he is talking about, I mostly agree with, because I classify it as “traditionalist”; NOT as radical Catholic reactionary.

  5. Now that comments work again, I can post my reply to Elliot from six days ago or so (I’m sure all will be overjoyed to see it):

    Remember, Tony:

    It’s okay for anti-radtrads to shape a Church to their liking (i.e. devoid of annoying “radtrads”),

    As noted, I don’t use the term radtrad any longer, and have removed it from all my papers and books. Nor do I advocate kicking out RadCathRs. I want them to see the error of their ways and cease and desist.

    but it’s wrong for committed Catholics to heed long-standing papal guidance by opposing creeping Modernism wherever it is.

    I completely agree, which is why I both detest modernism (as I stated) and oppose it (the distortions and stupefying noncomprehensions continue unabated). But I do lots of things, and there are only so many hours in a day. The biggest way I oppose modernism is by presenting and defending orthodoxy. You defeat darkness not by merely yelling against it or cursing it, but rather, by bringing more light into it, to wipe it out. Thus, every day I am opposing modernism by doing my apologetics which reveal orthodoxy to be true.

    [Dave on 7-25: since this time, in order to show that I fight liberals, too, I posted an old paper of mine contending that Fr. Raymond Brown is a liberal, and have been trying to convince two guys on my Facebook page (a Catholic philosopher and an Anglican Church historian) who believe otherwise]

    Once you internalize that precept, everything will make sense.

    Maybe so, but it’s not my concept, and so has nothing to do with me. Yet another straw man.

    As for Mr. Armstrong’s claim that I was “lying,” well that’s a typically sensationalistic claim coming from him.

    He has made it a fine and continually practiced art on his website, where the Holy Father is concerned. But (as I have noted many times), if one looks in the dictionary, “lie” doesn’t always have to mean “deliberate falsehood.” It can also be a synonym of falsehood. And Bougis clearly did that, since he retracted it. Hence, for “lie” offers this second meaning for the word used as both a noun (“an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.”) and as a verb (“to express what is false; convey a false impression.”).

    When I became convinced of the inaccuracy of the translations I had cited, I retracted my post.

    No kidding. I already noted that in my reply above (“he begrudgingly retracted his argument”). At first it looked like he would retract with class, but soon an edgy acrimony prevailed and I was hounded off the site.

    But that didn’t generate enough shaming and bloodlust for his monthly chest-pounding circuit, so I require the additional smear of being called a liar.

    Yet he claims I am characterized by sensationalism? LOL

    (Meanwhile, Armstrong never could explain why he at first defended the statements under dispute, but then jettisoned them as erroneous once a bad translation could be cited. I shall have more to say about the “Pope Icarus” saga, believe it or not, God willing, once I find the time.)

    All was dealt with at length at the time. In charity, I offered to not mention his name in my resulting blog paper where I defended the pope. That made no difference. He still decided to act like an ass and hound me off of his page when I disagreed too much. So I did a Facebook post where his name was mentioned.

  6. Yes, the previous post where Elliot and I clashed (“Pope Icarus alights…”) is still password-protected, so in effect, I am blocked from accessing it. It doesn’t come up in a site search, either.

  7. Thank you for accepting my account of the blocked comments. 🙂

  8. Yeah, that’s what happens when I retract a post.

  9. Meh. It was a translation error and hearsay. I’m a son of the Church. 😉

  10. B.C. It is not because of you that we can’t have nice (things like the Mass); it is because of Popes like he-who-is-soon-to-be-canonised

  11. O, and then there is this

    Gee, why is it the Axis of Ultramontanists have not used their gold standard (AU humor) of papal apologetics to measure these weird words that presumably constitute continuity?

  12. O, and did you know that Redemptor Hominis cited Pope Paul VI’s first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam?

    Paul VI selected this present-day consciousness of the Church as the first theme in his fundamental Encyclical beginning with the words Ecclesiam Suam. Let me refer first of all to this Encyclical and link myself with it in this first document that, so to speak, inaugurates the present pontificate. The Church’s consciousness, enlightened and supported by the Holy Spirit and fathoming more and more deeply both her divine mystery and her human mission, and even her human weaknesses-this consciousness is and must remain the first source of the Church’s love, as love in turn helps to strengthen and deepen her consciousness. Paul VI left us a witness of such an extremely acute consciousness of the Church. Through the many things, often causing suffering, that went to make up his pontificate he taught us intrepid love for the Church, which is, as the Council states, a “sacrament or sign and means of intimate union with God, and of the unity of all mankind”9.

    Well, so what if his Pontificate caused suffering; one can’t bake a new church without cracking Tradition and great Chefs ought be Canonised.

    O, and here is # 7 of Ecclesiasm Suam Nor do We propose to make this encyclical a solemn proclamation of Catholic doctrine or of moral or social principles. Our purpose is merely to send you a sincere message, as between brothers and members of a common family. We do so in fulfillment of Our duty and with no other thought in mind than to open Our heart to you and to strengthen more and more and render more joyful that union of faith and love which happily exists between us. We aim at increasingly better results from our pastoral activity, a more fruitful outcome of the sessions of the Ecumenical Council, and a clearer exposition of those doctrinal and practical rules which govern the spiritual and apostolic activity of the official rulers of the Church, their subjects, collaborators and well-wishers.

    The bottom line, B. C. ? YOU are the problem. You and your ilk are the angry, arrogant, storm clouds of Tradition that keep raining on the beautiful new pentecost in the springtime of this new civilisation of love.

  13. Tony Jokin says:

    The issue is that everyone wants to build this “civilization of love” but none of the contemporaries seem to want to give a precise definition of “love” that will be compatible with that of the God of the old testament as well as the new and praxis of the Church for 2000 years.

    The word love today seems to just mean “make everyone happy for the moment”. If someone wants to be gay, find a way for them to be happy for the moment by being what they want to me. If someone wants to continue in their second marriage and receive communion, find a way they can be happy for the moment by doing that. If someone wants to commit a sin or is leading a life of sin, be patient rather than tell them Christ will condemn them if they continue without repentance. Because if you tell them that, they will become unhappy for the moment.

    So make people happy for the moment seems to be the resounding cry of our prelates. The biggest sin you can do is to make a person unhappy by calling them to repentance…..

  14. Yeah, that’s what happens when I retract a post.

    1) Then you must retract many, since I saw many of yours password-protected when I was trying to find this one.

    2) If it is so worthless as to be available to only a few privileged members, why not delete it altogether?

    3) If you have entirely retracted it, that’s not how you presented it at the time. You only renounced part of it and kept asserting the remainder of your arguments.

    4) But if it is only partially retracted, why not have it fully public again?

    5) If my counter-argument caused you to retract, then why did you become angry with me and tell me to get lost, rather than thankful that I saved you from promulgating an embarrassing error?

  15. Dave, let me be frank. I’ve got too many other things to do to respond to all of your comments, so I’m just letting you know that I’m only addressing your most recent numbered comment. I just wanted to clarify the scope of my reply.

    1) Logically, that’s imprecise. Password-protection is not exclusively (“iff”) used for retractions.

    2) I added a proviso at the top of the post, so any hypothetical “privileged” readers who do happen to access it, months after the fact, will see the retraction front and center. Keeping the page up but off-limits suffices to remove its contents from the internet, yet without causing link rot.

    3) Yes, I retract any arguments I made which depend on the faulty translation. However, I still stand by ancillary arguments concerning the hypothetical orthodoxy of the translation as it was being debated before being thrown out. As I shall explain, God willing, in a different post, that’s the crux of the problem, even once the particular statement is discarded as a faulty translation.

    4) I’m working on a number of large posts, so I’d rather prevent further dispute until things are written in a more orderly, polished fashion.

    5) I get irritated with commenters who don’t know when to quit blowing up a thread with endless provisos.

    God willing, I will get those large “follow-up” posts out in due time, and then the debate can carry on in a proper fashion. Meanwhile, carrying on a discussion like this does not interest me. Thank you for your generous tone and interactions with others here. You’re welcome to make your points, but please exercise realistic prudence about excessive comments, and, especially, expecting me to address every jot and tittle. Thanks.

  16. Brother ABS, that video had me in stitches. A pitch-perfect commentary of the current state of the Church for us few flummoxed faithful fowl.

  17. Codg [the nickname actually came from me ten years ago, folks],

    Thanks very much for your explanation. This sort of tone would have made possible lots more constructive discussion than in fact has occurred between us.

    please exercise realistic prudence about excessive comments

    Happy to oblige. See ya! Maybe I’ll show up in another five months, if the pattern holds. That is, unless it is excessive for me to comment here more than once a year? 🙂

    I would also note before I split that when it’s one person against five or so (directly) and most of this community (indirectly), who will support you in any event, that requires no small amount ink, if a real dialogue or debate is to take place, and no one should object to it (shouldn’t be an issue at all). It wasn’t me, after all, who decided to bring one of my posts up in a thread here. But once that is done, surely no one would say that a person has no right to give their side of things?

    Secondly, by my reckoning, my views were misrepresented (Murray has partially admitted as much, so this is not “paranoia” or defensiveness et al). That also takes far more writing to refute than it takes to misrepresent another.

    But whatever. I’m outta here [sound of door shutting and feet rushing away . . . ]

  18. Murray (mgl) says:

    Woah, woah, woah. Let’s not count chickens.

    I have said that I may be guilty of reading Dave through Father D. I have yet to determine whether I am, in fact, guilty. This is because a) I am a terrible procrastinator, and b) This is a busy time here in beautiful Far North Portlandia. I promise I will reply to your post, Dave, in due time, but it is sunny this evening, I am tipsy, and my dog needs a walk.

  19. Branch says:

    I look forward to your follow up posts, Codg.

  20. Are you currently being sent into Hell forever … automatically excommunicated (outside) of God’s Catholic Church ?

    Answer: Yes you are … you can reverse it … please continue.

    Council of Florence, Session 8, 22 Nov 1439 — infallible Source of Dogma >
    “Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally.”

    You must believe the Catholic Dogma to be in the Church … Dogma you have never seen.

    Site > … infallible Dogma throughout.

    The Catholic Faith is not Bible interpretation … it is the Catholic infallible Sources of Dogma. The Catholic Church didn’t even define the Bible’s New Testament Canon until 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage.

    Can a group which enforces the opposite, the opposite, and the opposite of the Catholic unchangeable Dogma be the Catholic Church?

    No, it cannot possibly be the Catholic Church … and promotion of the opposite of the Catholic Dogma is exactly what the vatican-2 heretic cult does … and has been doing since it’s founding on 8 December 1965 at the Vatican.

    The vatican-2 heresy does not have the Office of the Papacy … only the Catholic Church has the Papacy.

    The Dogma cannot “change” or be “reversed” … God does not “change”.

    The founding documents of the vatican-2 heretic cult … the “vatican-2 council” documents … have well over 200 heresies against prior defined unchangeable Dogma. Every (apparent) bishop at the “council” approved the mountain of heresy, which caused their automatic excommunication, see Section 13.2 of the below site.

    Section 12 > Anti-Christ vatican-2 heresies (50 listed) … followed by many Catholic corrections.

    Sections 13 and 13.1 > Photographic proof of heresy at the Vatican.

    Because of … the Catholic Dogma on automatic excommunication for heresy or for physical participation in a heretic cult (such as the v-2 cult) …

    … we were all placed, body and soul, outside of Christianity (the Catholic Church) on 8 December 1965 … the close date of the “council”.

    Section 13.2 > Catholic Dogma on automatic excommunication for heresy or participating in a heretic cult such as … vatican-2, lutheran, methodist, evangelical, etc.

    Section 107 > St. Athanasius (died 373 A.D.) … “Even if the Church were reduced to a handful …” – – during the “arian” heresy … we are there again, but worse.

    Section 13.3 > Matt 16:18, Gates of Hell scripture … is not about the Office of the Papacy … four Dogmatic Councils defined it … that heresy will not cause the Dogma to disappear.

    Section 13.4 > The vatican-2 heretic cult does not have the Office of the Papacy only the Catholic Church has the Papacy.

    Section 13.6 > The Catholic Dogma on Jurisdiction and Automatic Excommunication for heresy define that … God has allowed Catholic Jurisdiction … for Mass and Confession to disappear from the world. There is no such thing as Catholic Mass outside of the Catholic Church.

    Non-Catholic heresies such as “vatican-2”, “sspx”, “sspv”, “cmri”, etc. … do not have Catholic Mass.

    Section 19.1 > Dogma on Abjuration for re-entering Christianity (the Catholic Church) … after being automatically excommunicated. A Formal Abjuration is provided here also.

    Section 10.2 > Returning to a state of grace, in places and times when Confession is not available, like now.

    Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. — infallible Source of Dogma >
    “The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy.”

    Blessed John Eudes, died 1680 >
    “The greatest evil existing today is heresy, an infernal rage which hurls countless souls into eternal damnation.”

    Everything you must know, believe, and do to get to Heaven is on > >

    Our Lady of Conquest
    Pray for us

  21. As do I, Branch, as do I. 🙂

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s