Examining only 2 of his posts above, I docuмented multiple instances of systematic and purposeful subversion.

The same could be done for the majority of the 803 posts of Josh987654321 on CathInfo so far, but there are only 24 hours in the day.

Hey if they wanna spew heresy and stay and Matt says it's okay, then it's okay. His rules. However, he will get pushback by lots of us on here 24/7.

Is that an official report to Matthew of heresy by josh987654321 ?

Just to clarify, who is the "he" in your final sentence, Josh or Matthew?

not Matt, this Josh guy and others like him. 

Hi,

I've been on 4 Catholic Forums in total now, banned for life on all of 'em.

Thus before I start here I would like to list the forums I have been banned from and the reasons why so that moderators and others here can assess whether I should even try to post here or not. If not then I'll just call it a day and be on my way.

1) Catholic Answers Forum
I lasted quite some time here, first signed up when 'gαy marriage' was sweeping the western world and had hit Australia, the name wasn't thought through as josh1 was taken, josh2 was taken etc... I didn't think I'd be there long but once I had a name I wanted to keep it just in case I ran into others I had met there.

The lifetime ban occurred around the time of the Martin Luther 'commemorations' that were taking place and were celebrations in all but name only... There was a case where Catholics were praying the Rosary in the back of a Church where they'd done one of these 'commemorations' with the Priest even removing the tabernacle to do so and then called the police on these Catholics inside a Catholic Church so they were arrested and another Priest on the forum there was happy about it... I can't remember exactly what I said as it was so long ago, but essentially he said as a layman I owe obedience to the Priest doing such things and I said something along the lines of you can't trash hundreds of years of hierarchy and then try to pull rank with me.


2) Catholic Common Sense
The lifetime ban occurred around the beginning of C0VlD... I could see the writing on the wall thanks to many heroic doctors and others blowing the whistle on not only the dangers but also aborted tissue and I tried to warn others about the possible side effects of the jabs and strongly suspected the mandates were coming (which they did in the end) I talked about ADE, that they were not the same as traditional vaccines (themselves having numerous problems) as this was gene therapy and entirely different, I said that one should try to make an informed decision but to never be swayed by peer pressure and force, do it only if you think it'll be good for your health and not because you are pressured. Anyway... the moderator there was actually very good but she told me that the decision was out of her hands as it was demanded by the website host as I was spreading misinformation/disinformation whatever terms they want to use and therefore I had to go.


3) FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forum
After much study and research I came to the conclusion that Pope Benedict XVI was deposed and usurped and that Bergoglio was not validly elected (Not only do we have Wikileaks proving they were conducting a 'Catholic Spring' against the Church, but later that same year in 2014 Victoria Nuland and others were in Ukraine conducting a violent coup there against Yanukovych, so Pope Benedict XVI has simply been one more victim in a long line expanding many years IMO)... This was intolerable to some there but didn't get me banned straight away... one member however who took such objection to me that they started slandering me by saying I was private messaging him insults which I knew very well I never sent a private message to that individual at all... surely the moderators could have seen and known that... I got banned anyway so I don't know what happened there, I suspect I was framed by a disgruntled member.


4) Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum
This one was the most surprising I thought and I don't know how people will respond here but I'll give it a try.

So I have an Orthodox friend where we discussed valid matter for the Eucharist as he believes that Unleavened Bread is invalid matter... so I found on YouTube one Priest speak on it (I was surprised at how few videos and resources existed defending the use of Unleavened Bread) anyway, the Priest simply said it was based on the rules around the Passover... Exodus 12... and I thought at the time, why make such a weak passing remark when you have such a strong case?... well I don't ask that question anymore.

I know now that making the case for Unleavened Bread puts Catholics in a very precarious position considering the Eastern Rite and the Orthodox (I have no beef with either)... the Orthodox on the other hand have pointed this out to me and I think they have a good case in that I don't at all think both matter are the same or equal and I would like to get to the bottom of this when it comes to something as important as the matter for the Holy Eucharist.

Ironically, the Eastern Rite Catholic I was discussing it with was not at all offended and I would have liked to have a good conversation with him about it, however, the moderator who uses Unleavened Bread himself was very outraged by it and another member was even more so who offered no arguments and just a litany of insults, way over the top for what I said... I guess it's a very emotive topic.

Anyway, the ban was already a forgone conclusion at that point and the tipping point came when the moderator longed for the return of when heretics were burned at the stake to which I mentioned that St Joan of Arc met a similar fate and how he called me a heretic and how the same has been said of many factions within the Catholic Church and outside the Catholic Church, which then becomes a matter of who is the most blood thirsty and ruthless wins the day.

I think the use of Unleavened Bread was very clear in Exodus and not a light matter as all the Jєωs (why does this word default to that kind of font? Only noticed when editing this post) would have had to know it very well to the point where not even having leaven in their homes and being cut off from Israel if they ate leaven during this time (Exodus 12), furthermore, Jesus sent Peter and John to prepare it... to prepare a Passover... no leaven in sight (Luke 22:8, Exodus 12)

The other thing I'd mention, is that if it were a form of typology, then why just the bread? Why not the wine also? Having the bread changed but not the wine for a case of typology also doesn't make sense, furthermore, in terms of foods that most closely resemble that of flesh and blood, I can think of no better than Unleavened Bread and Red Wine.

There is also the point that the Greek 'Artos' was used instead of the more accurate term 'Azymos' to which I would mention, there was no need to use the more specific word of Azymos at this point, as it had already been made very clear in Exodus 12 with the rules around the Passover, that they were preparing the feast of 'Azymos' (Unleavened Bread) and so the general term of 'Artos' (Bread) was more than sufficient IMO as there was no leaven to even be in sight and the reason why I think this is important, is because Exodus 12 makes such a big deal over this issue for something that some people want to deem unimportant.

Anyway, not sure how all this will be received, I know it's a lot. The more I learn the more of a precarious situation I seem to put myself in. I can backup everything I have said here with sources if you would like... except the forums which no longer exist or private messages of course.

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

Thanks for reading and God Bless

His very first post, your first clue — previously banned from every Catholic forum to which he had posted. 

By the way, Mark, as for Josh's "heresy" regarding unleavened/leavened bread, I'm going to rule a "WHO CARES" on that one.

I can't imagine how that would harm the Catholic world at large by leaving such posts (and persons) alone.
What, does he get to decide what kind of hosts will be used at his local Eastern Rite chapel? Maybe he'll slip in some unleavened bread in place of leavened bread? Ooh, I better ban him quick before that happens!

Who cares!

Heresy is heresy, but you're going to have to come up with something more serious, more dangerous to the Faith, against Josh before I ban him for "heresy".

Yes, he might technically be in error about leavened/unleavened bread. He has an exaggerated, mistaken understanding about the requirement to use only unleavened bread in Divine Worship. BIG DEAL!
Would that even be a heresy strictly speaking? Does it directly oppose any defined dogmas? There's a reason the Catholic Church used to investigate and condemn heretics as necessary -- not laymen.

By the way, Mark, as for Josh's "heresy" regarding unleavened/leavened bread, I'm going to rule a "WHO CARES" on that one.

I can't imagine how that would harm the Catholic world at large by leaving such posts (and persons) alone.
What, does he get to decide what kind of hosts will be used at his local Eastern Rite chapel? Maybe he'll slip in some unleavened bread in place of leavened bread? Ooh, I better ban him quick before that happens!

Who cares!

Heresy is heresy, but you're going to have to come up with something more serious, more dangerous to the Faith, against Josh before I ban him for "heresy".

Yes, he might technically be in error about leavened/unleavened bread. He has an exaggerated, mistaken understanding about the requirement to use only unleavened bread in Divine Worship. BIG DEAL!
Would that even be a heresy strictly speaking? Does it directly oppose any defined dogmas? There's a reason the Catholic Church used to investigate and condemn heretics as necessary -- not laymen.

I have not entered that leavened/unleavened fray, so that part of your complaint is better directed at those in the "bread" fray.

My main objections about josh9-1 are these statements (and the deceits used to deploy these statements):

1. "nothing" of the Old Law was replaced = Dual Covenant Heresy
2. Catholics should adopt Jєωιѕн understanding of Scripture.
3. The curse of Matthew 27:25 was only on "particular" Jєωs, namely "on those present and calling out on that day," not a trans-generational "and upon our children" curse.

The Novus Ordo Curia forced the USCCB to redact the Dual Covenant Heresy, so josh9-1 is such a rank heretic that his position is anathema even to the Modernists. It is quite a feat to scandalize both Trads and the Novus Ordo.

He boasts that he does not read the corrections put before him. That is purposeful.

He has employed all manner of deceits (straw man argument, inverted Scriptural verses, false paraphrasing, et al.) and evasion (lengthy non-responsive posts, refusing to clarify simple yes/no and "how many" questions asked of him, et al.). I have already chronicled dozens of examples, so won't repeat them all here.  Suffice it to say, the pattern of his posting is solid evidence of willful *widespread*, *systematic* and *purposeful* exactly the criteria you defined.

Here's an example completely unrelated to the Jєωs.  It concerns his proselytizing the condemned Faustina diaries:

https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/t75282/msg959113/#msg959113

His non-responsive diversion is a salient example of how purposeful he is. Not only the number of his posts but the variety of topics speak to "widespread." The deceits used in so many venues speaks to "systematic."

Like you, I too have been banned (ahem!), so it is not merely that he was banned, but that he has been banned from multiple forums precisely for the same type of behavior he has displayed here. Nothing has stopped him from finding new venues to spread his poison. He ignores even the efforts of the women here who approach him sweetly. Neither the "carrot" nor the "stick" chasten him. Ergo, he is willful, purposeful, widespread, systematic, and contumacious.

I have throughly docuмented his manifestations of mental illness, but will not repeat that here, because those only relate to his culpability. Objectively, he is a heretic willful *widespread*, *systematic* and *purposeful* on a mission to proselytize his contumacious heresy and heterodoxy.

This guy is Poche writ large.

P.S. While I am thinking of it, why does it require 2 returns to move the cursor to the next line? and… Why does a paste automatically appear in a different font and a much larger font size (e.g., the link above to the josh/Meg exchange)?

Meg, not exactly a frequent admirer of mine , noted this:

Pretty sure that's not something new, but I gotta give credit to him [me who started the "Something sinister is afoot here" thread] for this thread. I do think that there is a coordinated attack on Cathinfo from the three usernames mentioned [included josh987654321] , and it is likely that they are the same person, or three persons working together. But I don't believe that he/they are any sort of traditionalist. Probably not even a Novus Ordo Catholic, as in not Catholic at all, though I could be wrong about that

Notwithstanding his ban, Papal Tiara nailed this about josh987654321 et al.:

Intentional or not, their posts clearly reveal these objectives in action.

The items in bold have supporting evidence; the others are speculative but, in my view, likely true.

1.To flood the forum with content to “memory hole” or bury genuine discussions.
2. To sow discord and division among forum members.
3. To merge traditionalist and conciliar viewpoints subtly, diluting traditional positions.
4. To discredit traditionalist voices by provoking exaggerated or extreme responses.
5. To monitor and gather intelligence on traditionalist arguments and strategies.
6. To discourage users by creating an atmosphere of frustration and distrust.
7. To introduce gradual doctrinal errors under the guise of “reasonable” debate.
8. To shift focus away from central issues by constantly steering discussions toward trivial matters.
9. To normalize modernist or secular ideologies under a veneer of “reasonable Catholicism.”
10. To demoralize traditional Catholics by creating doubt and confusion around traditional teachings and leaders.
11. To shift accountability away from the Jєωs and redirect criticism elsewhere.
12. To promote secular politics as the primary solution, downplaying or dismissing the need for a Catholic state.

By the way, Mark, as for Josh's "heresy" regarding unleavened/leavened bread, I'm going to rule a "WHO CARES" on that one.

I agree.  Just ignore the guy.  


What makes things worse is Mark, following him around on every thread, mucking up every thread and destroying conversations, in the name of “hunting down” heretics.  

There’s been a lot worse people than Josh on this site.  Mark makes it worse by amplifying everything Josh says and turning every thread into a witch hunt.  

If one wanted to destroy a website, uncharity is just as bad as quasi-heresy.  It’s uncharitable to impose your witch hunt into every conversation and copy-paste the same posts, repeatedly.  

It’s also uncharitable to post overlong, article/length views, on threads which have nothing to do with your posts.  

So Mark, in your quest to “out” Josh, your acting rude towards everyone else.  It needs to stop.  This site has become disorderly and chaotic due to your Joo-spam.  Not everything is about them.