Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on July 13, 2015, 10:00:23 AM
-
The question is simple, and so is the answer.
i.imgur.com/rZKJ1gX.png
i.imgur.com/dLIsf5j.png
i.imgur.com/kzFI22i.png
i.imgur.com/EIxImNn.png
i.imgur.com/a7Vq5Yg.png
i.imgur.com/GO1H5rR.png
Who needs a cup of coffee when you've got this in the morning?
-
I can't view this. Idk if it's just my phone or what. Also, I didn't start the thread and stand by my general position that anonymous posts/threads are generally bad form.
I would appreciate being able to see whatever it is though. Is it links, pics, or what? I don't understand why I can't see it as I typically view links and pics just fine.
-
I can't view this. Idk if it's just my phone or what.
I can't see it either.
Also, I didn't start the thread and stand by my general position that anonymous posts/threads are generally bad form.
Agreed 100%. I'd say this is particularly true if the topic at hand is something along the lines of "Are you being honest here and there."
-
Reformatted:
http://s17.postimg.org/87mkpp03z/jkcaf1.png
http://s17.postimg.org/xrouw4lhr/jkcaf2.png
http://s17.postimg.org/ix09hybwv/jkcaf3.png
http://s17.postimg.org/9rrwo38i7/jkcaf4.png
http://s17.postimg.org/da3wkh9e7/jkcaf5.png
http://s17.postimg.org/4uec2z6j3/jkcafepilogue.png
-
It is a bunch of screen caps of things I have posted on CAF.
If somebody wants to ask me questions about anything that I have posted anywhere, use your name.
Also, I would appreciate being asked about one thing at a time.
-
I think even Jayne deserves the decency of knowing who is speaking against her.
Reading through hurriedly, I was particularly troubled by what she had to say about the SSPV person.
I doubt she would ever say anything like that on CI.
-
Her response about the "communion service" was such as to embolden the person in his erroneous path--a person in whom the Holy Ghost was likely working and planting questions to seek the fullness of Catholicism.
Despicable!! You just like to pontificate whether you know what in the hell you're talking about or not!! This was most egregious!!
-
The one that "we" should welcome trads and charismatics was less than 10 days ago and is very telling. She does not consider herself a trad by that wording. And trads should be welcomed on the same level as charismatics. Wow Jayne!!
She is admittedly duplicitous and should be banned for potential harm to the faith of others.
-
I think even Jayne deserves the decency of knowing who is speaking against her.
Reading through hurriedly, I was particularly troubled by what she had to say about the SSPV person.
I doubt she would ever say anything like that on CI.
It sounded to me like a woman was wanting to marry a man who did not consider her to be a Catholic because she attends a diocesan approved TLM.
I wrote: I do not expect anything other than prayer to work.
I advise you not to marry him while he is like this. You should probably stop dating him and look elsewhere.
In response to person who said it was like marrying a Methodist and therefore OK, I wrote:
It is questionable whether he is Catholic. He is not in union with the pope, which is a necessary condition of Catholicism.
It is not like marrying a Methodist. It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon. To marry a person who despises your religion is extremely difficult. It is unrealistic to say that it will all be OK if you love him.
I have questioned whether sedes are Catholic on trad forums. I may have done so on CI in the past. I remember that I have definitely mentioned that I disagree with SV here.
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
-
This is by Jayne:
The one that "we" should welcome trads and charismatics was less than 10 days ago and is very telling. She does not consider herself a trad by that wording. And trads should be welcomed on the same level as charismatics. Wow Jayne!!
She is admittedly duplicitous and should be banned for potential harm to the faith of others.
I wrote on CAF: Thank you for this wonderful illustration of how making "room for many thoughts, theologies, disciplines, and practices" can be taken too far.
Some things, such as your example of same-sex marriage, can never have a place in the Catholic Church. Accepting such a thing is not about unity in Christ. On the other hand, we ought to make room for both trads and charismatics, for example
We need to discern what are the areas of legitimate disagreement and where we draw the line and say, "this is not and never can be Catholic."
I stand by this post. If I deserve to be banned for it, so be it.
If I posted about controversial topics here, I would be accused of trolling. When I avoid them, I am accused of being duplicitous.
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
This is what I think about the sort of sede who thinks that other trads are not Catholic. That is how I understood the situation from the OP.
There are a variety of sedes and I would not say this about all of them.
-
This is by Jayne:
The one that "we" should welcome trads and charismatics was less than 10 days ago and is very telling. She does not consider herself a trad by that wording. And trads should be welcomed on the same level as charismatics. Wow Jayne!!
She is admittedly duplicitous and should be banned for potential harm to the faith of others.
I wrote on CAF: Thank you for this wonderful illustration of how making "room for many thoughts, theologies, disciplines, and practices" can be taken too far.
Some things, such as your example of same-sex marriage, can never have a place in the Catholic Church. Accepting such a thing is not about unity in Christ. On the other hand, we ought to make room for both trads and charismatics, for example
We need to discern what are the areas of legitimate disagreement and where we draw the line and say, "this is not and never can be Catholic."
I stand by this post. If I deserve to be banned for it, so be it.
If I posted about controversial topics here, I would be accused of trolling. When I avoid them, I am accused of being duplicitous.
I'm not talking about the crux of the topic. I'm talking about how you put trads on the same level as charismatics, say accept both, and the context of "we" indicating that you consider yourself neither.
-
There are a variety of sedes and I would not say this about all of them.
Back-pedaling and wiggle-room.
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
This is what I think about the sort of sede who thinks that other trads are not Catholic. That is how I understood the situation from the OP.
There are a variety of sedes and I would not say this about all of them.
If you mean dogmatic sedes (like MHFM, etc.) then I can see your point. That being said, you should've made it more clear.
-
I'm not talking about the crux of the topic. I'm talking about how you put trads on the same level as charismatics, say accept both, and the context of "we" indicating that you consider yourself neither.
I consider myself a Catholic and I believe that the Catholic Church consists of more than trads. I sometimes say "we" to refer to myself within this group. I sometimes say "we" to refer to myself within the group of trads too. And I have done this on CAF.
I am a Canadian woman. When I say "we Canadians love poutine" I am not denying that I am a woman.
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
This is what I think about the sort of sede who thinks that other trads are not Catholic. That is how I understood the situation from the OP.
Nice try but no cigar. You need to hone your skills or I may start doubting that you're a jew.
SSPV + Against Vatican II + Against NO Mass = Thinks other trads aren't Catholic?
Hmmmm... What you supposedly thought doesn't add up Jayne.
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
This is what I think about the sort of sede who thinks that other trads are not Catholic. That is how I understood the situation from the OP.
There are a variety of sedes and I would not say this about all of them.
If you mean dogmatic sedes (like MHFM, etc.) then I can see your point. That being said, you should've made it more clear.
The whole point is being vague, able to obfuscate if need be. Which has now happened.
-
There are a variety of sedes and I would not say this about all of them.
Back-pedaling and wiggle-room.
I can leave my comment misinterpreted or I can explain and be accused of this.
It happens to be true. Accept or don't.
-
See, Jayne is always the victim. To her, if she can't win, neither can you.
But the cover is blown, and trying to spin it any way at all will do her 0 favors.
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
This is what I think about the sort of sede who thinks that other trads are not Catholic. That is how I understood the situation from the OP.
There are a variety of sedes and I would not say this about all of them.
If you mean dogmatic sedes (like MHFM, etc.) then I can see your point. That being said, you should've made it more clear.
If I had been addressing people who knew enough to understand the distinctions between kinds of sedes, I probably would have. It seemed too complicated for CAF.
-
See, Jayne is always the victim. To her, if she can't win, neither can you.
But the cover is blown, and trying to spin it any way at all will do her 0 favors.
At least, I am not hiding behind anonymity. How seriously can anyone take the opinions of a person who will not even put his name to them?
-
If I had been addressing people who knew enough to understand the distinctions between kinds of sedes, I probably would have. It seemed too complicated for CAF.
Of course! Jayne was just misunderstood. This is definitely no attempt to pull the wool over anyone's eyes and attempt a recovery, however far-fetched it may seem.
No, certainly not, move along, move along...
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
This is what I think about the sort of sede who thinks that other trads are not Catholic. That is how I understood the situation from the OP.
Nice try but no cigar. You need to hone your skills or I may start doubting that you're a jew.
SSPV + Against Vatican II + Against NO Mass = Thinks other trads aren't Catholic?
Hmmmm... What you supposedly thought doesn't add up Jayne.
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
This is what I think about the sort of sede who thinks that other trads are not Catholic. That is how I understood the situation from the OP.
There are a variety of sedes and I would not say this about all of them.
If you mean dogmatic sedes (like MHFM, etc.) then I can see your point. That being said, you should've made it more clear.
The whole point is being vague, able to obfuscate if need be. Which has now happened.
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
This is what I think about the sort of sede who thinks that other trads are not Catholic. That is how I understood the situation from the OP.
There are a variety of sedes and I would not say this about all of them.
If you mean dogmatic sedes (like MHFM, etc.) then I can see your point. That being said, you should've made it more clear.
If I had been addressing people who knew enough to understand the distinctions between kinds of sedes, I probably would have. It seemed too complicated for CAF.
So you just lump them all in as jack chick heretical tract peddlers. Nice!!
OHCA
-
Given what she really thinks of Trads, there has to be some truth in what she wrote, right, these visits to CathInfo must be like Jane Goodall visiting the chimps. Behaves enough like one of the wild ones to be accepted in their society. Then at CAF, the return to civilization. Don't marry one of those dirty sedes. Priestless NO is OK. There should be a place for both charismatics and trads in the Church, whatever Church that is. Her Church is a menagerie that she can observe and act superior to. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
I think even Jayne deserves the decency of knowing who is speaking against her.
Hear hear.
As an aside, I think the anonymous forum has been a venue for far more bad than good, and I for one would shed no tears if it were removed from CI. I say this with no reference whatsoever to the subject at hand (JayneK's posts).
If someone has demonstrated himself (or herself) to be a danger to the forum (e.g. Impy), then by all means bring evidence - but don't do so anonymously.
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
This is what I think about the sort of sede who thinks that other trads are not Catholic. That is how I understood the situation from the OP.
There are a variety of sedes and I would not say this about all of them.
If you mean dogmatic sedes (like MHFM, etc.) then I can see your point. That being said, you should've made it more clear.
If I had been addressing people who knew enough to understand the distinctions between kinds of sedes, I probably would have. It seemed too complicated for CAF.
So you just lump them all in as jack chick heretical tract peddlers. Nice!!
OHCA
Distinctions are made and forgotten at her convenience. Keep up with the game!
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
This is what I think about the sort of sede who thinks that other trads are not Catholic. That is how I understood the situation from the OP.
There are a variety of sedes and I would not say this about all of them.
If you mean dogmatic sedes (like MHFM, etc.) then I can see your point. That being said, you should've made it more clear.
If I had been addressing people who knew enough to understand the distinctions between kinds of sedes, I probably would have. It seemed too complicated for CAF.
So you just lump them all in as jack chick heretical tract peddlers. Nice!!
OHCA
Obviously there are all kinds of ways in which dogmatic sedes are not like Fundamentalists. In terms of the difficulties of marrying a person who despises one's religion (as I said in the following sentence) they are similar.
-
Given what she really thinks of Trads, there has to be some truth in what she wrote, right, these visits to CathInfo must be like Jane Goodall visiting the chimps. Behaves enough like one of the wild ones to be accepted in their society. Then at CAF, the return to civilization. Don't marry one of those dirty sedes. Priestless NO is OK. There should be a place for both charismatics and trads in the Church, whatever Church that is. Her Church is a menagerie that she can observe and act superior to. Nothing more, nothing less.
How amusing we must be.
-
This is by Jayne:
The one that "we" should welcome trads and charismatics was less than 10 days ago and is very telling. She does not consider herself a trad by that wording. And trads should be welcomed on the same level as charismatics. Wow Jayne!!
She is admittedly duplicitous and should be banned for potential harm to the faith of others.
I wrote on CAF: Thank you for this wonderful illustration of how making "room for many thoughts, theologies, disciplines, and practices" can be taken too far.
Some things, such as your example of same-sex marriage, can never have a place in the Catholic Church. Accepting such a thing is not about unity in Christ. On the other hand, we ought to make room for both trads and charismatics, for example
We need to discern what are the areas of legitimate disagreement and where we draw the line and say, "this is not and never can be Catholic."
I stand by this post. If I deserve to be banned for it, so be it.
If I posted about controversial topics here, I would be accused of trolling. When I avoid them, I am accused of being duplicitous.
The Charismatic movement is heretical. Plain and simple. Traditional Catholics are Catholics being Catholics as Catholics always were.
There is no unity with heresy. And your placing Traditional Catholics on a relative level with Charismatic heretics is disgusting. The fact that you proudly stand by it is worse - and for that reason, yes I think you should be banned.
-
The Charismatic movement is heretical. Plain and simple. Traditional Catholics are Catholics being Catholics as Catholics always were.
There is no unity with heresy. And your placing Traditional Catholics on a relative level with Charismatic heretics is disgusting. The fact that you proudly stand by it is worse - and for that reason, yes I think you should be banned.
Fair enough. Thank you for putting your name to your post.
-
The Charismatic movement is heretical. Plain and simple.
How dare you say that. They speak in tongues. They roll around on the floor and bark like dogs. That is holiness.
-
The Charismatic movement is heretical. Plain and simple. Traditional Catholics are Catholics being Catholics as Catholics always were.
There is no unity with heresy. And your placing Traditional Catholics on a relative level with Charismatic heretics is disgusting. The fact that you proudly stand by it is worse - and for that reason, yes I think you should be banned.
Fair enough. Thank you for putting your name to your post.
When confronting the content does not work, or cannot work, dodge like a slow-motion action flick. In the hope that nobody actually notices the content. Which they already have.
-
This thread title should have been more clear. It should have said something like "Hey Jayne, I'll calling you out!" The OP should also have not posted anonymously because this topic is so inflammatory.
As for the thread in CAF, I remember reading that and I remember reading Jayne's response but I didn't know it was Jayne. I thought it was just some novus ordite who thinks Catholicism is whatever the pope says it is and if the Pope says that all religions lead a soul to Heaven, then that's the way it is and if Our Lord says something else than Our Lord must also consult the pope. The pope must be a faithful Catholic just as much as a janitor who keeps getting fired because he is too drunk to show up for work. The Pope has more responsibilities, more privileges too but the privilege of doing as he pleases and disregarding the Faith of our Fathers is not on the menu.
As for the sedes, even those accused of being mad dogs, they are merely standing fast for the Catholic Faith. An SSPV chapel is [u]indistinguishable[/u] from your every day Catholic parish circa 1957 so who exactly changed? The SSPV priests, the original nine, were all ordained by Archbishop LeFebrvre who did not use the altered by revolutionaries form of Pope Paul VI. All subsequent ordinations were done using the same form. Bishop Kelly, an SSPV bishop (one of two) was consecrated by a retired Bishop who was himself consecrated in 1950 by Cardinal Spellman so the validity is there.
The Sedes, if they are erring, is in that they are judging the pontiff when they may not actually have that authority. They must stand fast for the Catholic faith - yes, they should step lightly when it comes to making decisions regarding the current occupant.
-
I think even Jayne deserves the decency of knowing who is speaking against her.
Hear hear.
As an aside, I think the anonymous forum has been a venue for far more bad than good, and I for one would shed no tears if it were removed from CI. I say this with no reference whatsoever to the subject at hand (JayneK's posts).
If someone has demonstrated himself (or herself) to be a danger to the forum (e.g. Impy), then by all means bring evidence - but don't do so anonymously.
Presumably the OP (or one of his upvoters) is the downthumber.
Downthumber - Please explain how it is unreasonable or objectionable to expect a person who is bringing forward accusations against another to not hide behind total anonymity.
-
This is by Jayne:
The one that "we" should welcome trads and charismatics was less than 10 days ago and is very telling. She does not consider herself a trad by that wording. And trads should be welcomed on the same level as charismatics. Wow Jayne!!
She is admittedly duplicitous and should be banned for potential harm to the faith of others.
I wrote on CAF: Thank you for this wonderful illustration of how making "room for many thoughts, theologies, disciplines, and practices" can be taken too far.
Some things, such as your example of same-sex marriage, can never have a place in the Catholic Church. Accepting such a thing is not about unity in Christ. On the other hand, we ought to make room for both trads and charismatics, for example
We need to discern what are the areas of legitimate disagreement and where we draw the line and say, "this is not and never can be Catholic."
I stand by this post. If I deserve to be banned for it, so be it.
If I posted about controversial topics here, I would be accused of trolling. When I avoid them, I am accused of being duplicitous.
The Charismatic movement is heretical. Plain and simple. Traditional Catholics are Catholics being Catholics as Catholics always were.
There is no unity with heresy. And your placing Traditional Catholics on a relative level with Charismatic heretics is disgusting. The fact that you proudly stand by it is worse - and for that reason, yes I think you should be banned.
All I did was check off the "Do Not Post this Anonymously" box before posting this.
Not hard at all.
-
This thread title should have been more clear. It should have said something like "Hey Jayne, I'll calling you out!" The OP should also have not posted anonymously because this topic is so inflammatory.
Yes.
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
This is what I think about the sort of sede who thinks that other trads are not Catholic. That is how I understood the situation from the OP.
There are a variety of sedes and I would not say this about all of them.
If you mean dogmatic sedes (like MHFM, etc.) then I can see your point. That being said, you should've made it more clear.
If I had been addressing people who knew enough to understand the distinctions between kinds of sedes, I probably would have. It seemed too complicated for CAF.
So you just lump them all in as jack chick heretical tract peddlers. Nice!!
OHCA
Distinctions are made and forgotten at her convenience. Keep up with the game!
"The rules are made to be broken" has never applied more, eh?
-
It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon.
Wow!! This is what you think about sedes and particularly SSPV!! And even worse than marrying a Methodist?!?!
This is what I think about the sort of sede who thinks that other trads are not Catholic. That is how I understood the situation from the OP.
There are a variety of sedes and I would not say this about all of them.
If you mean dogmatic sedes (like MHFM, etc.) then I can see your point. That being said, you should've made it more clear.
The whole point is being vague, able to obfuscate if need be. Which has now happened.
Not to mention sidelining...
-
I would very much like to know if Hirsch is our anonymous instigator.
I hope not--that would be a new low.
-
The Charismatic movement is heretical. Plain and simple. Traditional Catholics are Catholics being Catholics as Catholics always were.
There is no unity with heresy. And your placing Traditional Catholics on a relative level with Charismatic heretics is disgusting. The fact that you proudly stand by it is worse - and for that reason, yes I think you should be banned.
Fair enough. Thank you for putting your name to your post.
You're welcome. But if it's so fair, why do you stand by your post?
Either you believe there can be unity with heretics, or you don't believe Charismatics are heretics.
Either proposition demands an explanation.
-
Charismatic movement is nothing more than a emotion-inducing pep rally. It's a mutant clade of pentecostalism cloaked in a modernist "catholic" phenotype. Some of it is variably demonic, and all of it is a novelty. No saints and early Church doctors ever did anything resembling the Charismatic movement. The Apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, thus they began to speak in tongues at Pentecost, because they were commissioned as the first bishops. The attributes of Pentecost were exclusive to the Apostles, and the Holy Mother of God because she is the Queen of the Apostles.
-
The Charismatic movement is heretical. Plain and simple. Traditional Catholics are Catholics being Catholics as Catholics always were.
There is no unity with heresy. And your placing Traditional Catholics on a relative level with Charismatic heretics is disgusting. The fact that you proudly stand by it is worse - and for that reason, yes I think you should be banned.
Fair enough. Thank you for putting your name to your post.
You're welcome. But if it's so fair, why do you stand by your post?
Either you believe there can be unity with heretics, or you don't believe Charismatics are heretics.
Either proposition demands an explanation.
I do not believe that Charismatics are heretics. If you are interested, I would prefer to expand on this in another thread where I will not be sniped at by anonymous cowards while I talk with you.
-
edit... (previous comment went through)
-
I do not believe that Charismatics are heretics.
I believe they are heretics. But I believe nearly everyone in the Novus Ordo are heretics.
-
Charismatic movement is nothing more than a emotion-inducing pep rally. It's a mutant clade of pentecostalism cloaked in a modernist "catholic" phenotype. Some of it is variably demonic, and all of it is a novelty. No saints and early Church doctors ever did anything resembling the Charismatic movement. The Apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, thus they began to speak in tongues at Pentecost, because they were commissioned as the first bishops. The attributes of Pentecost were exclusive to the Apostles, and the Holy Mother of God because she is the Queen of the Apostles.
And apparently they are not heretics, according to a post on the last page.
Right.
-
I think even Jayne deserves the decency of knowing who is speaking against her.
Hear hear.
As an aside, I think the anonymous forum has been a venue for far more bad than good, and I for one would shed no tears if it were removed from CI. I say this with no reference whatsoever to the subject at hand (JayneK's posts).
Anonymity should be narrowly reserved for prayer requests, sensitive personal issues folks may desire input regarding, and such.
Initiating something such as this against Jayne as anonymous is unbecoming of Catholic dignity.
I would like to see any woman initiating such as this anonymously suspended and any man-bitch doing so banned.
-
The Charismatic movement is heretical. Plain and simple. Traditional Catholics are Catholics being Catholics as Catholics always were.
There is no unity with heresy. And your placing Traditional Catholics on a relative level with Charismatic heretics is disgusting. The fact that you proudly stand by it is worse - and for that reason, yes I think you should be banned.
Fair enough. Thank you for putting your name to your post.
You're welcome. But if it's so fair, why do you stand by your post?
Either you believe there can be unity with heretics, or you don't believe Charismatics are heretics.
Either proposition demands an explanation.
I do not believe that Charismatics are heretics. If you are interested, I would prefer to expand on this in another thread where I will not be sniped at by anonymous cowards while I talk with you.
Well, maybe not formal heretics, but then I don't know for sure. Certainly they believe themselves to be Catholic, since they have been encouraged and accepted by conciliar Bishops and Popes. But Charismaticism comes from Protestant Pentacostalism. The Charismatics in a way are victims, too, in that their unCatholic practices should have been squelched and denounced long ago by Popes and bishops, but weren't.
-
Jayne,
You voiced support for a number of serious errors on CAF, and the only response thus far seems to essentially be that you were trying to fit in at CAF, or were trying to present tidbits of tradion in such a manner that it would not get you banned.
In my opinion, bearing witness to the truth is infinitely more important than avoiding a ban on an Internet discussion board.
Spreading error does not constitute spreading tradition. In effect, you are neutering tradition by misrepresenting the faith.
You need to clarify your statement that some dogmas are "more important" than others. Isn't it the case that assent to all dogmas of the church, at least implicitly, is necessary for salvation?
The idea that Sedevacantists are schismatic or otherwise not Catholic is offensive and innacurate. If you are going to claim this is true, you should provide a citation from an authoritative Catholic source that says one refusing to submit to a papal claimant because one believes the claimant to be false would render one a Schismatic. If you cannot prove this downright absurd claim, you should withdraw it.
When you said we should "make room for charismatics and Traditionalists", it seems you implicitly claimed both are part of the Church, which is exactly what Fr. Cekada labeled as the "Frankenchurch" error. I would very much like to think you do not subscribe to this one-world ecuмenical idea, so please clarify if I misinterpreted you.
The last snippet shows a post you made on this forum, and I think the italicized question is a very pertinent one, and I would ask that you respond to it.
And just so you know, I neither started this thread, nor posted in it until now, and I'm sure the administrator of this forum can verify that.
Sbyvlius
-
I think even Jayne deserves the decency of knowing who is speaking against her.
Hear hear.
As an aside, I think the anonymous forum has been a venue for far more bad than good, and I for one would shed no tears if it were removed from CI. I say this with no reference whatsoever to the subject at hand (JayneK's posts).
Anonymity should be narrowly reserved for prayer requests, sensitive personal issues folks may desire input regarding, and such.
Initiating something such as this against Jayne as anonymous is unbecoming of Catholic dignity.
I would like to see any woman initiating such as this anonymously suspended and any man-bitch doing so banned.
I agree. I feel somewhat responsible in that I'm the one who wanted Jayne to explain her post on CAF, thus showing her username there, but I thought that everyone here already knew that she posted there under that name.
I don't think that Jayne is guilty of duplicity, but I could be wrong. On the CAF forum, it is easy to get caught up in thinking like a novus-ordite, which I have been guilty of myself on that forum at times. Especially since I do attend the Novus Ordo most of the time. but I'm a trad at heart.
Still, it is good that she's explaining her views, which is needed, IMO.
~Meg (I forgot to enable the non-anonymous thing).
-
Jayne,
You voiced support for a number of serious errors on CAF, and the only response thus far seems to essentially be that you were trying to fit in at CAF, or were trying to present tidbits of tradion in such a manner that it would not get you banned.
In my opinion, bearing witness to the truth is infinitely more important than avoiding a ban on an Internet discussion board.
Spreading error does not constitute spreading tradition. In effect, you are neutering tradition by misrepresenting the faith.
This point has already been made in this thread and I am seriously considering stopping my involvement in CAF.
You need to clarify your statement that some dogmas are "more important" than others. Isn't it the case that assent to all dogmas of the church, at least implicitly, is necessary for salvation?
I was answering the question of what the pope meant by something he had said. I was not stating my personal position.
The idea that Sedevacantists are schismatic or otherwise not Catholic is offensive and innacurate. If you are going to claim this is true, you should provide a citation from an authoritative Catholic source that says one refusing to submit to a papal claimant because one believes the claimant to be false would render one a Schismatic. If you cannot prove this downright absurd claim, you should withdraw it.
I referred to the status of sedes as questionable because it is an open question in my mind. I have seen sources that suggest they are materially schismatic and others that support your position. I am not able to prove one side or the other and I go back and forth between them. I apologize for offending you.
When you said we should "make room for charismatics and Traditionalists", it seems you implicitly claimed both are part of the Church, which is exactly what Fr. Cekada labeled as the "Frankenchurch" error. I would very much like to think you do not subscribe to this one-world ecuмenical idea, so please clarify if I misinterpreted you.
You are understanding me correctly. I believe that charismatics can be part of the Catholic Church.
The last snippet shows a post you made on this forum, and I think the italicized question is a very pertinent one, and I would ask that you respond to it.
I am being honest on both CAF and on CI. I have opinions that I withhold on both forums because I do not want to stir up trouble, but anything I write is something that I actually believe to be true.
And just so you know, I neither started this thread, nor posted in it until now, and I'm sure the administrator of this forum can verify that.
Sbyvlius
It never even crossed my mind that it was you starting this thread or making those comments. You don't do things like that.
-
I think even Jayne deserves the decency of knowing who is speaking against her.
Hear hear.
As an aside, I think the anonymous forum has been a venue for far more bad than good, and I for one would shed no tears if it were removed from CI. I say this with no reference whatsoever to the subject at hand (JayneK's posts).
Anonymity should be narrowly reserved for prayer requests, sensitive personal issues folks may desire input regarding, and such.
Initiating something such as this against Jayne as anonymous is unbecoming of Catholic dignity.
I would like to see any woman initiating such as this anonymously suspended and any man-bitch doing so banned.
I agree. I feel somewhat responsible in that I'm the one who wanted Jayne to explain her post on CAF, thus showing her username there, but I thought that everyone here already knew that she posted there under that name.
I don't think that Jayne is guilty of duplicity, but I could be wrong. On the CAF forum, it is easy to get caught up in thinking like a novus-ordite, which I have been guilty of myself on that forum at times. Especially since I do attend the Novus Ordo most of the time. but I'm a trad at heart.
Still, it is good that she's explaining her views, which is needed, IMO.
~Meg (I forgot to enable the non-anonymous thing).
The name "floresco" was common knowledge from way back. I had forgotten, but it promptly came back to me.
She is guilty of duplicity in at least one of these ways--possibly all--possibly more that I haven't thought of. She is 1) saying whatever is necessary to blend in on each forum; 2) she is deliberately misrepresenting her intentions on one or both fora; 3) she is following the example of the father of lies and conciliar popes and intentionally being ambiguous so she can claim she meant this or that as the wind blows.
After observing all of her mushy-mouth liberal tendencies over the years, I wouldn't put it past her to be trying to derail the substance of tradition at every opportunity. As far as her being in line with common trad thought, I think she has said enough between these two recent threads to debunk that myth.
-
Jayne,
You voiced support for a number of serious errors on CAF, and the only response thus far seems to essentially be that you were trying to fit in at CAF, or were trying to present tidbits of tradion in such a manner that it would not get you banned.
In my opinion, bearing witness to the truth is infinitely more important than avoiding a ban on an Internet discussion board.
Spreading error does not constitute spreading tradition. In effect, you are neutering tradition by misrepresenting the faith.
This point has already been made in this thread and I am seriously considering stopping my involvement in CAF.
Whatever happened to Jayne sitting back and learning instead of imparting "wisdom?" By the timeline I observe from CAF, that never happened.
You need to clarify your statement that some dogmas are "more important" than others. Isn't it the case that assent to all dogmas of the church, at least implicitly, is necessary for salvation?
I was answering the question of what the pope meant by something he had said. I was not stating my personal position.
Sad fact--even Jayne feels the need to clarify for Francis. And is somebody who probably more clearly said what he meant for once. :facepalm:
The idea that Sedevacantists are schismatic or otherwise not Catholic is offensive and innacurate. If you are going to claim this is true, you should provide a citation from an authoritative Catholic source that says one refusing to submit to a papal claimant because one believes the claimant to be false would render one a Schismatic. If you cannot prove this downright absurd claim, you should withdraw it.
I referred to the status of sedes as questionable because it is an open question in my mind. I have seen sources that suggest they are materially schismatic and others that support your position. I am not able to prove one side or the other and I go back and forth between them. I apologize for offending you.
So sedes being an open question in your mind justifies your heaping them in the same pile as heretical jack chick tract freaks?!?!
When you said we should "make room for charismatics and Traditionalists", it seems you implicitly claimed both are part of the Church, which is exactly what Fr. Cekada labeled as the "Frankenchurch" error. I would very much like to think you do not subscribe to this one-world ecuмenical idea, so please clarify if I misinterpreted you.
You are understanding me correctly. I believe that charismatics can be part of the Catholic Church.
Ban-worthy quote.
-
Matthew, I respectfully request that you unveil the anonymous here.
Catholics should not provide cover for sneaky behavior. There's no reason why the person who started this could not have posted the information in the other ongoing thread, other than cowardice.
-
Or you are traditional Catholic, or you are not Catholic, the faith is one. Tradition and Scripture, Church Fathers, dogma ?
From St Francis to St. Bernard the faith is the same. One Faith many talents.
To consider a charismatic a Catholic is something new to me. I guess neither the protestants and atheists do such a thing. Unless they are ecuмenical :laugh1:
As I said "trads" are bunch of cowards who don't want to fight the good fight.
"uhh I'm so pious"(=lukewarm nowadays, hypocrite, etc), "you are a fundamentalist" (those who goes to the fundamentals), "you are a radical" (those who goes to the roots of things) :furtive:
"27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.
28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
Now start the operation cleaning up, downplaying words, no changing of mind, no repentance, no correction of errors, etc.
The conversations regarding women vestments the same thing, hypocrites.
:heretic: :heretic:
-
Or you are traditional Catholic, or you are not Catholic, the faith is one. Tradition and Scripture, Church Fathers, dogma ?
From St Francis to St. Bernard the faith is the same. One Faith many talents.
To consider a charismatic a Catholic is something new to me. I guess neither the protestants and atheists do such a thing. Unless they are ecuмenical :laugh1:
As I said "trads" are bunch of cowards who don't want to fight the good fight.
"uhh I'm so pious"(=lukewarm nowadays, hypocrite, etc), "you are a fundamentalist" (those who goes to the fundamentals), "you are a radical" (those who goes to the roots of things) :furtive:
"27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.
28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
Now start the operation cleaning up, downplaying words, no changing of mind, no repentance, no correction of errors, etc.
The conversations regarding women vestments the same thing, hypocrites.
:heretic: :heretic:
The above sounds like something Pablo might write. :scratchchin:
-
Matthew, I respectfully request that you unveil the anonymous here.
Catholics should not provide cover for sneaky behavior. There's no reason why the person who started this could not have posted the information in the other ongoing thread, other than cowardice.
The person who started it should have the decency to step up. Otherwise, I am going to be left thinking who I think it is and perhaps unfairly so.
Notice how sedes were intentionally pitted against Jayne and it would have been disingenuous for the person I think it is to have done that, particularly anonymously. So I really hope it isn't him.
If so, he could save a little face by manning up and owning it.
-
Or you are traditional Catholic, or you are not Catholic, the faith is one. Tradition and Scripture, Church Fathers, dogma ?
From St Francis to St. Bernard the faith is the same. One Faith many talents.
To consider a charismatic a Catholic is something new to me. I guess neither the protestants and atheists do such a thing. Unless they are ecuмenical :laugh1:
As I said "trads" are bunch of cowards who don't want to fight the good fight.
"uhh I'm so pious"(=lukewarm nowadays, hypocrite, etc), "you are a fundamentalist" (those who goes to the fundamentals), "you are a radical" (those who goes to the roots of things) :furtive:
"27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.
28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
Now start the operation cleaning up, downplaying words, no changing of mind, no repentance, no correction of errors, etc.
The conversations regarding women vestments the same thing, hypocrites.
:heretic: :heretic:
The above sounds like something Pablo might write. :scratchchin:
The "'trads' are bunch of cowards who don't want to fight the good fight" comment sounds like somebody else.
You're right though--overall it is a rambling semi-coherent post.
-
Jayne,
You voiced support for a number of serious errors on CAF, and the only response thus far seems to essentially be that you were trying to fit in at CAF, or were trying to present tidbits of tradion in such a manner that it would not get you banned.
In my opinion, bearing witness to the truth is infinitely more important than avoiding a ban on an Internet discussion board.
Spreading error does not constitute spreading tradition. In effect, you are neutering tradition by misrepresenting the faith.
This point has already been made in this thread and I am seriously considering stopping my involvement in CAF.
You need to clarify your statement that some dogmas are "more important" than others. Isn't it the case that assent to all dogmas of the church, at least implicitly, is necessary for salvation?
I was answering the question of what the pope meant by something he had said. I was not stating my personal position.
The idea that Sedevacantists are schismatic or otherwise not Catholic is offensive and innacurate. If you are going to claim this is true, you should provide a citation from an authoritative Catholic source that says one refusing to submit to a papal claimant because one believes the claimant to be false would render one a Schismatic. If you cannot prove this downright absurd claim, you should withdraw it.
I referred to the status of sedes as questionable because it is an open question in my mind. I have seen sources that suggest they are materially schismatic and others that support your position. I am not able to prove one side or the other and I go back and forth between them. I apologize for offending you.
When you said we should "make room for charismatics and Traditionalists", it seems you implicitly claimed both are part of the Church, which is exactly what Fr. Cekada labeled as the "Frankenchurch" error. I would very much like to think you do not subscribe to this one-world ecuмenical idea, so please clarify if I misinterpreted you.
You are understanding me correctly. I believe that charismatics can be part of the Catholic Church.
The last snippet shows a post you made on this forum, and I think the italicized question is a very pertinent one, and I would ask that you respond to it.
I am being honest on both CAF and on CI. I have opinions that I withhold on both forums because I do not want to stir up trouble, but anything I write is something that I actually believe to be true.
And just so you know, I neither started this thread, nor posted in it until now, and I'm sure the administrator of this forum can verify that.
Sbyvlius
It never even crossed my mind that it was you starting this thread or making those comments. You don't do things like that.
I hope you eventually decide to leave CAF, or, at the very least, not misrepresent the Faith in order to appease the modernists (or whatever).
From looking at your post on CAF, it is not evidently clear that you were merely defending Francis, and your statement along the lines of the dogmas of Christ being "more important" than Marian dogmas is clearly your opinion, not his. Again, I am asking you to clarify this.
If you cannot prove one way or the other that Sedevacantists are schismatic, it is fundamentally against Catholic principles to describe them as such, for until and unless you can prove this very serious accusation, what you are doing borders very closely on slande.
With regards to the charismatic issue, are you saying that charismaticism itself can be Catholic, or merely that someone who follows charismaticism can also be Catholic due to his individual and particular circuмstance?
-
Or you are traditional Catholic, or you are not Catholic, the faith is one. Tradition and Scripture, Church Fathers, dogma ?
From St Francis to St. Bernard the faith is the same. One Faith many talents.
To consider a charismatic a Catholic is something new to me. I guess neither the protestants and atheists do such a thing. Unless they are ecuмenical :laugh1:
As I said "trads" are bunch of cowards who don't want to fight the good fight.
"uhh I'm so pious"(=lukewarm nowadays, hypocrite, etc), "you are a fundamentalist" (those who goes to the fundamentals), "you are a radical" (those who goes to the roots of things) :furtive:
"27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.
28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
Now start the operation cleaning up, downplaying words, no changing of mind, no repentance, no correction of errors, etc.
The conversations regarding women vestments the same thing, hypocrites.
:heretic: :heretic:
The above sounds like something Pablo might write. :scratchchin:
BRCatholic here
-
Anonymity should be narrowly reserved for prayer requests, sensitive personal issues folks may desire input regarding, and such.
Initiating something such as this against Jayne as anonymous is unbecoming of Catholic dignity.
I would like to see any woman initiating such as this anonymously suspended and any man-bitch doing so banned.
I agree. I feel somewhat responsible in that I'm the one who wanted Jayne to explain her post on CAF, thus showing her username there, but I thought that everyone here already knew that she posted there under that name.
I don't think that Jayne is guilty of duplicity, but I could be wrong. On the CAF forum, it is easy to get caught up in thinking like a novus-ordite, which I have been guilty of myself on that forum at times. Especially since I do attend the Novus Ordo most of the time. but I'm a trad at heart.
Still, it is good that she's explaining her views, which is needed, IMO.
~Meg (I forgot to enable the non-anonymous thing).
Meg, you are not responsible and you did not do anything wrong. Far too many people knew of my CAF identity for it to be considered a secret. I am willing to answer for anything that I write on any forum under any name.
If anyone other than the OP is responsible for this thread it is myself. I spent years being an arrogant, bossy know-it-all on trad forums. I doubt this thread would have been made if I had not caused so much bad feeling.
I see what you mean about get caught up in thinking like a novus-ordite. It makes sense that trying to put things in terms they will understand could lead to thinking the same way. The more I think about it the more it seems like this is not a good thing for me to do.
-
Whatever happened to Jayne sitting back and learning instead of imparting "wisdom?" By the timeline I observe from CAF, that never happened.
I do not "impart wisdom" on trad forums where so many people know so much more than I. I thought that I might have something to offer to CAF where there is so much ignorance and modernism. However, I have had to reconsider that now.
-
Whatever happened to Jayne sitting back and learning instead of imparting "wisdom?" By the timeline I observe from CAF, that never happened.
I do not "impart wisdom" on trad forums where so many people know so much more than I. I thought that I might have something to offer to CAF where there is so much ignorance and modernism. However, I have had to reconsider that now.
You counseled some poor searching soul that the new-age femi-nαzι dominated communion service about which he was having misgivings and begging for guidance was acceptable. Don't give me the bull$#!+ line that you're trying to slyly be a trad voice on CAF.
-
I spent years being an arrogant, bossy know-it-all on trad forums.
If you're implying that this is no longer the case, I am struggling to find the words to properly encourage someone at the 1.5 mile mark of a marathon.
-
Do you not realize that your passive-aggressive "I am a wonderful person because I'm not confrontational" bit is a definite form of arrogance?
-
From looking at your post on CAF, it is not evidently clear that you were merely defending Francis, and your statement along the lines of the dogmas of Christ being "more important" than Marian dogmas is clearly your opinion, not his. Again, I am asking you to clarify this.
I did not say "more important." I used the term "more central". I am pretty sure this is what Francis thinks because I learned it in a theology class. I think it has to do with how the ideas are organized rather than with their importance for salvation. After all, denying any dogma endangers salvation.
If you cannot prove one way or the other that Sedevacantists are schismatic, it is fundamentally against Catholic principles to describe them as such, for until and unless you can prove this very serious accusation, what you are doing borders very closely on slande.
That's true. It was wrong for me to suggest on CAF that sedes are schismatic even if I did not say so in those exact words. I will avoid this error in the future.
With regards to the charismatic issue, are you saying that charismaticism itself can be Catholic, or merely that someone who follows charismaticism can also be Catholic due to his individual and particular circuмstance
The Charismatic Renewal movement within the Catholic Church has been recognized by the post-conciliar popes as an authentic work of the Holy Spirit. That is my position.
-
I spent years being an arrogant, bossy know-it-all on trad forums.
If you're implying that this is no longer the case, I am struggling to find the words to properly encourage someone at the 1.5 mile mark of a marathon.
I am doing my best to change the habits of a life-time. It will not happen instantly. You would be more helpful if you offered constructive criticism. Perhaps you can suggest some specific things I could do.
-
If you cannot prove one way or the other that Sedevacantists are schismatic, it is fundamentally against Catholic principles to describe them as such, for until and unless you can prove this very serious accusation, what you are doing borders very closely on slande.
That's true. It was wrong for me to suggest on CAF that sedes are schismatic even if I did not say so in those exact words. I will avoid this error in the future.
Right--you didn't say the word schismatic. Heretics are worse than schismatics. You told the lady that marrying a sede would be worse than marrying a Methodist!! A heretic!! And then you likened him to the jack chick tract freaks--the worst kind of Catholic haters!!
With regards to the charismatic issue, are you saying that charismaticism itself can be Catholic, or merely that someone who follows charismaticism can also be Catholic due to his individual and particular circuмstance
The Charismatic Renewal movement within the Catholic Church has been recognized by the post-conciliar popes as an authentic work of the Holy Spirit. That is my position.
The conciliar popes recognize and accept the NO "mass," new-rite sacraments, false ecuмenism, etc. And what are your trad credentials again??
"But who am I to judge?"
-
I spent years being an arrogant, bossy know-it-all on trad forums.
If you're implying that this is no longer the case, I am struggling to find the words to properly encourage someone at the 1.5 mile mark of a marathon.
I am doing my best to change the habits of a life-time. It will not happen instantly. You would be more helpful if you offered constructive criticism. Perhaps you can suggest some specific things I could do.
Read, listen, ask questions, and learn--as you have self-servingly said yourself several times, you don't know it all. I thought you were taking a step back and going into that mode previously. But I now see otherwise.
Frankly, Jayne, it's quite difficult for me to get past your emboldening the inquisitive soul in the NO communion service atrocity less than a year ago--after your having supposedly become entrenched in the truth found in tradition. I was in the NO for the first 40 years of my life. There were many times that I would bring things up which were just brushed aside as you did with that person. I certainly don't consider a solitary one of those who did so a trad Catholic.
-
Jayne, I wish you would do like our other resident NOer and relegate yourself primarily to posting about baking cookies, and eating cheese and butter. As much as it gets on BTNYC's nerves, I find that more tolerable.
-
I do not believe that Charismatics are heretics. If you are interested, I would prefer to expand on this in another thread where I will not be sniped at by anonymous cowards while I talk with you.
Very well:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=37337
-
I do not believe that Charismatics are heretics. If you are interested, I would prefer to expand on this in another thread where I will not be sniped at by anonymous cowards while I talk with you.
Very well:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=37337
Thank you. It is very good. I have responded.
-
I spent years being an arrogant, bossy know-it-all on trad forums.
If you're implying that this is no longer the case, I am struggling to find the words to properly encourage someone at the 1.5 mile mark of a marathon.
I am doing my best to change the habits of a life-time. It will not happen instantly. You would be more helpful if you offered constructive criticism. Perhaps you can suggest some specific things I could do.
Read, listen, ask questions, and learn--as you have self-servingly said yourself several times, you don't know it all. I thought you were taking a step back and going into that mode previously. But I now see otherwise.
Frankly, Jayne, it's quite difficult for me to get past your emboldening the inquisitive soul in the NO communion service atrocity less than a year ago--after your having supposedly become entrenched in the truth found in tradition. I was in the NO for the first 40 years of my life. There were many times that I would bring things up which were just brushed aside as you did with that person. I certainly don't consider a solitary one of those who did so a trad Catholic.
I gave his questions simple factual answers. The Vatican does allow Communion services and the Hosts, since they were consecrated by a priest, truly are the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
You are probably right that I missed an opportunity to say something better than that. Things like this make it hard to justify staying on CAF on the grounds that I am doing good there.
-
Staying on CAF is like staying in the NO. It is a danger to one's soul. It is much more likely that a Catholic will be infected by them than a Catholic making Catholics out of them.
-
I spent years being an arrogant, bossy know-it-all on trad forums.
If you're implying that this is no longer the case, I am struggling to find the words to properly encourage someone at the 1.5 mile mark of a marathon.
I am doing my best to change the habits of a life-time. It will not happen instantly. You would be more helpful if you offered constructive criticism. Perhaps you can suggest some specific things I could do.
Read, listen, ask questions, and learn--as you have self-servingly said yourself several times, you don't know it all. I thought you were taking a step back and going into that mode previously. But I now see otherwise.
Frankly, Jayne, it's quite difficult for me to get past your emboldening the inquisitive soul in the NO communion service atrocity less than a year ago--after your having supposedly become entrenched in the truth found in tradition. I was in the NO for the first 40 years of my life. There were many times that I would bring things up which were just brushed aside as you did with that person. I certainly don't consider a solitary one of those who did so a trad Catholic.
I gave his questions simple factual answers. The Vatican does allow Communion services and the Hosts, since they were consecrated by a priest, truly are the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
You are probably right that I missed an opportunity to say something better than that. Things like this make it hard to justify staying on CAF on the grounds that I am doing good there.
You did miss an opportunity to say something better. But you would have been better off not saying anything than echoing the NO line. Can you ever just be quiet? I know you're doing some better on CI. But apparently you've been raging on CAF. If you're a traditional Catholic, you would have issues with that communion service. And it certainly didn't replace a Mass, not even by NO standards unless I'm mistaken.
This "need" to get one's grubby paws on the Body of Christ at every "semi-licit" opportunity is very modern and NO. The poor soul in question was having misgivings. Did you steer him right? No. Did you remain silent w/o doing further damage? No. You couldn't resist showing how much Jayne knows and emboldening the poor soul in this modernist novel custom.
-
Well, I won't be posting on CAF anymore. But since Jayne's posting history has been scrutinized there (which is my fault), I feel it's only fair to give my username there too, which is: Denise1957. I'm sure that there are posts of mine that don't line up with a proper view of tradition either, though maybe in a different manner from Jayne's.
-
Well, I won't be posting on CAF anymore. But since Jayne's posting history has been scrutinized there (which is my fault), I feel it's only fair to give my username there too, which is: Denise1957. I'm sure that there are posts of mine that don't line up with a proper view of tradition either, though maybe in a different manner from Jayne's.
Jayne has a lengthy history. She was openly posting her material and it was just a matter of time until it caught up with her. Her "floresco" name was old news. Nobody had been trolling CI expecting to find her undercutting tradition. Based on what I had observed of her on CI of late (and I had been away for awhile), she was on the path of molding herself into a somewhat traditional Catholic. But she was only playing CI the way she claims she plays CAF.
I'm not out to scrutinize your every post on CAF and find fault with you. I'm not very familiar with you. But I trust that you're on CI to learn more about tradition and associate with traditional Catholics.
Jayne has been on trad fora for several years insisting that she's a trad and somewhat talking the talk, and having the benefit of trad fora (especially CI) to develop in the Faith. That's why it's so disturbing to see her other persona on CAF running parallel to what she sought to portray on CI, ongoing for quite some time and continuing right up to current.
-
Whatever happened to Jayne sitting back and learning instead of imparting "wisdom?" By the timeline I observe from CAF, that never happened.
I do not "impart wisdom" on trad forums where so many people know so much more than I. I thought that I might have something to offer to CAF where there is so much ignorance and modernism. However, I have had to reconsider that now.
This doesn't make sense to me. How will you help modernists by posting modernist and crypto-modernist ideas over there?
-
You did miss an opportunity to say something better. But you would have been better off not saying anything than echoing the NO line. Can you ever just be quiet? I know you're doing some better on CI. But apparently you've been raging on CAF. If you're a traditional Catholic, you would have issues with that communion service. And it certainly didn't replace a Mass, not even by NO standards unless I'm mistaken.
This "need" to get one's grubby paws on the Body of Christ at every "semi-licit" opportunity is very modern and NO. The poor soul in question was having misgivings. Did you steer him right? No. Did you remain silent w/o doing further damage? No. You couldn't resist showing how much Jayne knows and emboldening the poor soul in this modernist novel custom.
You are right. That is what I did. I am ashamed. Thank you for correcting me.
-
Whatever happened to Jayne sitting back and learning instead of imparting "wisdom?" By the timeline I observe from CAF, that never happened.
I do not "impart wisdom" on trad forums where so many people know so much more than I. I thought that I might have something to offer to CAF where there is so much ignorance and modernism. However, I have had to reconsider that now.
This doesn't make sense to me. How will you help modernists by posting modernist and crypto-modernist ideas over there?
It does not make sense. I am a fool.
-
I Timothy ch. ii verse xii-xiv
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression.
St. John Chrysostom
Homily 9, cont. "But I suffer not a woman to teach." "I do not suffer," he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness, of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides. "For Adam," says he, "was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
-
Until recently, I thought that I could do some good on Catholic Answers, too. After all, we are supposed to stand up for the Faith and for Truth. But I think there's a good reason why the pre-conciliar Church didn't allow for laypersons to be associating with those who hold opposing views from that of Catholicism (if this is true), in that we can be influenced by unCatholic views.
~Meg
-
I Timothy ch. ii verse xii-xiv
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression.
St. John Chrysostom
Homily 9, cont. "But I suffer not a woman to teach." "I do not suffer," he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness, of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides. "For Adam," says he, "was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
Apropos. Very good. So why post this anonymously?
So here we are, 17 pages of horsewhipping and the originator remains anonymous. Most everyone else has identified themselves.
Imho, justice requires the accused know who started this thread.
-
I Timothy ch. ii verse xii-xiv
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression.
St. John Chrysostom
Homily 9, cont. "But I suffer not a woman to teach." "I do not suffer," he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness, of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides. "For Adam," says he, "was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
Apropos. Very good. So why post this anonymously?
So here we are, 17 pages of horsewhipping and the originator remains anonymous. Most everyone else has identified themselves.
Imho, justice requires the accused know who started this thread.
Perhaps this incognito business is a Hirschevacantist Crisis.
-
I Timothy ch. ii verse xii-xiv
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression.
St. John Chrysostom
Homily 9, cont. "But I suffer not a woman to teach." "I do not suffer," he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness, of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides. "For Adam," says he, "was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
Apropos. Very good. So why post this anonymously?
So here we are, 17 pages of horsewhipping and the originator remains anonymous. Most everyone else has identified themselves.
Imho, justice requires the accused know who started this thread.
At first, I wanted the person who started the thread to be exposed so that I would not be the only one taking heat. I do not care about that now. I wrote all those things. I needed correcting. I deserved everything I got in this thread.
-
Perhaps this incognito business is a Hirschevacantist Crisis.
It does not seem like his style. I am pretty sure it is not him. I do not think we should be speculating on who did it.
-
The allowance of women to teach and have authority over men is the root of our evil today.
Even among so called "traditional" circles this plague has infested the most sincere of minds.
Only when the flesh is subjected to the spirit will there be peace.
-
At first, I wanted the person who started the thread to be exposed so that I would not be the only one taking heat. I do not care about that now. I wrote all those things. I needed correcting. I deserved everything I got in this thread.
Familiar tune. How sincere are you? How sincere are you (this time) about reading, listening, and learning more, and trying to impart "knowledge"/show how "smart" you are less? About trying to more fully learn tradition? About not publicly calling out the voice of tradition for being "confrontational?" About seeking and embracing tradition? About not referring to trads derogatorily, especially in non-trad arenas?
-
At first, I wanted the person who started the thread to be exposed so that I would not be the only one taking heat. I do not care about that now. I wrote all those things. I needed correcting. I deserved everything I got in this thread.
Familiar tune. How sincere are you? How sincere are you (this time) about reading, listening, and learning more, and trying to impart "knowledge"/show how "smart" you are less? About trying to more fully learn tradition? About not publicly calling out the voice of tradition for being "confrontational?" About seeking and embracing tradition? About not referring to trads derogatorily, especially in non-trad arenas?
I am sincere and always have been. I truly want to do all those things that you say. I am not sure how well I can do. Even St. Paul said that he did not do the good that he did want but the evil that he did not want. But I will try my best. I can start by leaving CAF. I will not post there again.
-
Two words: damage, and control.
-
The Charismatic movement is heretical. Plain and simple. Traditional Catholics are Catholics being Catholics as Catholics always were.
There is no unity with heresy. And your placing Traditional Catholics on a relative level with Charismatic heretics is disgusting. The fact that you proudly stand by it is worse - and for that reason, yes I think you should be banned.
Fair enough. Thank you for putting your name to your post.
...and here comes "nice, agreeable Jayne." It was the same BS at Fishkill.
-
The Charismatic movement is heretical. Plain and simple. Traditional Catholics are Catholics being Catholics as Catholics always were.
There is no unity with heresy. And your placing Traditional Catholics on a relative level with Charismatic heretics is disgusting. The fact that you proudly stand by it is worse - and for that reason, yes I think you should be banned.
Fair enough. Thank you for putting your name to your post.
...and here comes "nice, agreeable Jayne." It was the same BS at Fishkill.
And she's been through the same BS here on CI on previous occasions.
-
I gave his questions simple factual answers. The Vatican does allow Communion services and the Hosts, since they were consecrated by a priest, truly are the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
Since when does a traditional Catholic rely on anything that comes from the Vatican? It also allows female altar boys, sharing of sacraments with heretics and schismatics, false ecuмenism, etc.
-
Why is there so much attention paid to Jaynek everywhere? Who is she?
-
At first, I wanted the person who started the thread to be exposed so that I would not be the only one taking heat. I do not care about that now. I wrote all those things. I needed correcting. I deserved everything I got in this thread.
Familiar tune. How sincere are you? How sincere are you (this time) about reading, listening, and learning more, and trying to impart "knowledge"/show how "smart" you are less? About trying to more fully learn tradition? About not publicly calling out the voice of tradition for being "confrontational?" About seeking and embracing tradition? About not referring to trads derogatorily, especially in non-trad arenas?
It's just more passive-aggressive nonsense.
-
Speaking of more of Jayne's BS, does everybody remember this:
There are so many things that I find objectionable on this forum that I can no longer remain here in good conscience. I do not want my name associated with it.
What is the procedure to have my membership ended? Matthew, please ban me if that is what is required.
God bless you all.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26983&f=4
And she named it the JayneK thread, no less!! :roll-laugh1:
But wonder how many times she has told CAF that she can't stay there in good conscience...
-
Why is there so much attention paid to Jaynek everywhere?
Trad sharks smell blood in the water. They are tearing a convert whose made many mistakes limb from limb. Don't look, it's gruesome. Learn from this and stay away if you stumble or backslide. You'll be eaten alive. God have mercy on what we do to each other.
-
Why is there so much attention paid to Jaynek everywhere? Who is she?
If you joined Cathinfo within the last year, you probably haven't noticed me here. My goal has been to do what I said in this post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=33534&min=25&num=5): From now on I plan to be a quiet and respectful member who rarely posts and nobody pays much attention to. There will be no more trouble or drama from me.
Before that I did a lot of things I regret and people are understandably angry with me. I do not see this thread as being torn apart by sharks. It is an opportunity for me to show the sincerity of my repentance by patiently accepting the harshness directed at me. I am grateful.
-
Why is there so much attention paid to Jaynek everywhere?
Trad sharks smell blood in the water. They are tearing a convert whose made many mistakes limb from limb. Don't look, it's gruesome. Learn from this and stay away if you stumble or backslide. You'll be eaten alive. God have mercy on what we do to each other.
You forgot to check off the "Do Not post this Anonymously" box, Sigismund.
-
Meanwhile, in the Laramie thread, JK plays fast and loose with the usual revisionist history she invents for her yearly outing. Unfortunately for JK, her fictions can't erase what has already been seen.
-
JK on CAF, two weeks ago:
It is questionable whether [the sedevacantist boyfriend] is Catholic. He is not in uinion with the pope, which is a necessary condition of Catholicism.
It is not like marrying a Methodist. It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon. To marry a person who despises your religion is extremely difficult. It is unrealistic to say that it will all be OK if you love him.
JK on CI, Laramie thread, today:
I do not think that sedes are worse than Methodists. I think that it would be harder for a conservative Catholic to be married to a dogmatic sedevacantist than to a Methodist. This does not mean that I think a Methodist is more likely to be saved or to be a better person.
I have no problem with treating SVs respectfully as fellow Catholics. I was consistently supportive of the SVs on Suscipe Domine when they were attacked by Laramie.
Will the real JK please stand up?
But that will not happen.
Because there is no real JK, only a persona which tailors itself to whatever forum it's on.
Dishonesty cloaked in semantics and the "I'll improve, I won't do this again" routine. Which might have been believable if not for the ability to search and view all of a member's posts.
-
I said that I would not post any more on CAF, but I am wondering if I should make one last thread in which I clearly state my real views about sedes. It will probably get me banned but that is not really a problem if I am quitting anyhow.
Will this satisfy people?
-
JK on CAF, two weeks ago:
It is questionable whether [the sedevacantist boyfriend] is Catholic. He is not in uinion with the pope, which is a necessary condition of Catholicism.
It is not like marrying a Methodist. It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon. To marry a person who despises your religion is extremely difficult. It is unrealistic to say that it will all be OK if you love him.
JK on CI, Laramie thread, today:
I do not think that sedes are worse than Methodists. I think that it would be harder for a conservative Catholic to be married to a dogmatic sedevacantist than to a Methodist. This does not mean that I think a Methodist is more likely to be saved or to be a better person.
I have no problem with treating SVs respectfully as fellow Catholics. I was consistently supportive of the SVs on Suscipe Domine when they were attacked by Laramie.
Will the real JK please stand up?
But that will not happen.
Because there is no real JK, only a persona which tailors itself to whatever forum it's on.
Dishonesty cloaked in semantics and the "I'll improve, I won't do this again" routine. Which might have been believable if not for the ability to search and view all of a member's posts.
And of course none of this even touches the Charismatic heresy!
-
JK on CAF, two weeks ago:
It is questionable whether [the sedevacantist boyfriend] is Catholic. He is not in uinion with the pope, which is a necessary condition of Catholicism.
It is not like marrying a Methodist. It is like marrying a Fundamentalist who hands out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon. To marry a person who despises your religion is extremely difficult. It is unrealistic to say that it will all be OK if you love him.
JK on CI, Laramie thread, today:
I do not think that sedes are worse than Methodists. I think that it would be harder for a conservative Catholic to be married to a dogmatic sedevacantist than to a Methodist. This does not mean that I think a Methodist is more likely to be saved or to be a better person.
I have no problem with treating SVs respectfully as fellow Catholics. I was consistently supportive of the SVs on Suscipe Domine when they were attacked by Laramie.
Will the real JK please stand up?
But that will not happen.
Because there is no real JK, only a persona which tailors itself to whatever forum it's on.
Dishonesty cloaked in semantics and the "I'll improve, I won't do this again" routine. Which might have been believable if not for the ability to search and view all of a member's posts.
And of course none of this even touches the Charismatic heresy!
It baffles me why nobody wants to take credit for these two brilliant posts. I stand by what I have always said about posting anonymously. But that aside, these two posts are right on target.
-
I said that I would not post any more on CAF, but I am wondering if I should make one last thread in which I clearly state my real views about sedes. It will probably get me banned but that is not really a problem if I am quitting anyhow.
Will this satisfy people?
JayneK, don't give a thought to satisfying man / seeking approval. If you're not sure how to proceed, speak to a traditional priest and let him guide you. Perhaps he can act as, or refer you to, a spiritual advisor. You're caught up in a firestorm which makes you vulnerable to the evil one. It might be better to remove yourself from these environments.
A firestorm is a conflagration which attains such intensity that it creates and sustains its own wind system... the phenomenon's determining characteristic is a fire with its own storm-force winds from every point of the compass.
The Litany of Humility
O Jesus, meek and humble of heart,
Hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being loved,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being extolled,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being honored,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being praised,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being preferred to others,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being consulted,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being approved,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being humiliated,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being despised,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of suffering rebukes,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being calumniated,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being forgotten,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being ridiculed,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being wronged,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being suspected,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
That others may be loved more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That, in the opinion of the world, others may increase and I may decrease,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be chosen and I set aside,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be praised and I go unnoticed,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be preferred to me in everything,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
Here, in this all-embracing prayer, His Eminence Cardinal Merry del Val lays bare in a developmental, step-by-step fashion the embodiment of the totality of his conquest of self and of his entire spiritual life, revealing the secret sanctuary wherein he found the Source of Peace. He was accustomed to recite this litany after the celebration of Mass. It is very similar to the Litany for Interior Peace.
The Litany of Humility (http://www.catholictradition.org/Litanies/litany55.htm)
-
PerEvangelicaDicta, thank you for your advice. I respect you greatly and give it a lot of weight. Unfortunately I am currently without a spiritual director. I agree with you that speaking to one about this would be ideal, but I am not sure whom to ask.
I did not propose writing to CAF primarily to seek approval from people here. I have been genuinely convinced that what I wrote on CAF, while technically true, was misleading. I think that I did something wrong and I want to make it right.
-
PerEvangelicaDicta, thank you for your advice. I respect you greatly and give it a lot of weight. Unfortunately I am currently without a spiritual director. I agree with you that speaking to one about this would be ideal, but I am not sure whom to ask.
I did not propose writing to CAF primarily to seek approval from people here. I have been genuinely convinced that what I wrote on CAF, while technically true, was misleading. I think that I did something wrong and I want to make it right.
In what regard has your view of sedes changed since your CAF post of June 29 (merely 2 weeks ago)?
Please clearly state in detail what you think you did wrong, as well as the verbiage you're contemplating posting on CAF to clear things up.
-
JayneK, just to clarify:
When we are in the midst of chaos we should run to the arms of Our Holy Mother (see the icon of Our Mother of Perpetual Help).
You are in the midst of utter chaos on both forums, accusations left and right, and much confusion. This all has a very dysfunctional flavor.
Pull out now, and seek direction from a traditional priest before you make another move. He will guide you much better than we anonymous characters on an internet forum.
Come Holy Ghost, eternal love of the Father and Son.
-PerEvangelicaDicta
-
PerEvangelicaDicta, thank you for your advice. I respect you greatly and give it a lot of weight. Unfortunately I am currently without a spiritual director. I agree with you that speaking to one about this would be ideal, but I am not sure whom to ask.
I did not propose writing to CAF primarily to seek approval from people here. I have been genuinely convinced that what I wrote on CAF, while technically true, was misleading. I think that I did something wrong and I want to make it right.
I thought you did have a spiritual director., for I distinctly recall you telling me that your spiritual director (or was it your confessor) instructed you to limit your time on Internet fora no more than an hour per day.
The problem as I see it, Jayne, is that this has become something of a routine with you, and although you always apologize and pledge to do better, you never do, and here we are again.
For your own spiritual health, it might be best to just give up posting and reading Internet fora altogether, at least for the time being,
-
Will this satisfy people?
This[/u] is exactly why you have these issues right now.
It's human respect.
Women: let this woman be an example to all of you to emulate our Blessed Mother and Ever Virgin Mary by keeping quiet and modest.
For your sex has the tendency to be frivolous and talkative.
-
I think that the person generally recognized as pope is in fact the pope and therefore sedes are objectively mistaken. However, the situation in the Church is so confusing that it is likely that it is an honest mistake. This is different from knowing who the pope is and rejecting him (which would be formal schism).
I am not sure how to explain it in theological terms. Possibly it is material schism or it might simply be an error of fact about the identity of the pope. I go back and forth on this part. In either case, this is not grounds to question whether a person is Catholic, since this was the situation of St. Vincent Ferrer.
I have thought this for some time now, at least a year. What I did wrong was write on CAF so that it sounded like I was saying that sedes are not Catholic. What I actually wrote was true but I implied something false. It is true that there are people who question whether sedes are Catholic. And it is true that I have questions about how to describe sedes in terms of theology. It also is true that some people conclude that sedes are not Catholic because sedes are not in union with the pope. However, I implied that this was my personal opinion that sedes are not Catholic. I was deliberately misleading about this.
I would like to write to CAF and say that my conscience is bothering me because of this and post clearly my real opinion the way I have explained in the first two paragraphs. I had told you that I would not post to CAF again so I need you to release me from my word if I am to do this.
-
PerEvangelicaDicta, thank you for your advice. I respect you greatly and give it a lot of weight. Unfortunately I am currently without a spiritual director. I agree with you that speaking to one about this would be ideal, but I am not sure whom to ask.
I did not propose writing to CAF primarily to seek approval from people here. I have been genuinely convinced that what I wrote on CAF, while technically true, was misleading. I think that I did something wrong and I want to make it right.
I thought you did have a spiritual director., for I distinctly recall you telling me that your spiritual director (or was it your confessor) instructed you to limit your time on Internet fora no more than an hour per day.
The problem as I see it, Jayne, is that this has become something of a routine with you, and although you always apologize and pledge to do better, you never do, and here we are again.
For your own spiritual health, it might be best to just give up posting and reading Internet fora altogether, at least for the time being,
I used to have a spiritual director, but the situation has changed and I no longer do. I am looking for another. I have been trying to limit my time on forums to under an hour a day and have been improving on this, in general. I succeed on most days.
When I pledge to better, I really mean it and I have made progress. It is not reasonable to expect me to completely change overnight when I am dealing with ingrained habits and personality traits. Those take time to change and some failures are normal. I fail because I am weak, not because I am insincere in my apologies or my desire to do better.
-
I have thought this for some time now, at least a year. What I did wrong was write on CAF so that it sounded like I was saying that sedes are not Catholic. What I actually wrote was true but I implied something false. It is true that there are people who question whether sedes are Catholic. And it is true that I have questions about how to describe sedes in terms of theology. It also is true that some people conclude that sedes are not Catholic because sedes are not in union with the pope. However, I implied that this was my personal opinion that sedes are not Catholic. I was deliberately misleading about this.
Jєωιѕн legalism at its finest.
-
Will this satisfy people?
This[/u] is exactly why you have these issues right now.
It's human respect.
Women: let this woman be an example to all of you to emulate our Blessed Mother and Ever Virgin Mary by keeping quiet and modest.
For your sex has the tendency to be frivolous and talkative.
Take it one step further: the truth takes a backseat to social acceptability for her. Why be so passive about membership at CAF? She already agrees with them. CI is what must needs change, thus the effort to maintain some modicuм of acceptability, however threadbare.
If any further proof is required, look at the Charismatics issue. On CAF, totally unprompted to mention anything about them, she writes that the Church should "make room" for them and Trads, not as if these two groups are equal, but showing that to her they are equal. Then, to explain it away on CI, she claims it was merely the fact that popes approved of them that she did not consider them heretical. So she has gone from saying that the Church should make room for them to that they are not heretical. But since that is still not quite kosher here, there is more backpedaling to do.
If you want to buy in to the new sincerity posts, go ahead. While you're at it, I have a bridge to sell you.
-
I can't view this. [....] Also, I didn't start the thread and stand by my general position that anonymous posts/threads are generally bad form.
Yes, indeed. I have, um, nontrivial doubts about JayneK and whether she belongs on CathInfo. But I strongly believe that a hostile critique of a registered user should never be allowed in the "Anonymous Posts Allowed" (f=18) subforum. Good grief !  CathInfo already allows each of us a nom de plume !  So despite more than 4000 topic-views already, why was I the first to overlook the surprising expression of technical naïveté, and thumb-up the important objection in the above initial reply, which is by someone who is, um, far from being a fan of JayneK?
I think even Jayne deserves the decency of knowing who is speaking against her.
Yes, I strongly concur. The last such topic I replied in was a much worse abuse: A persistent anonymous attack on a traditional Catholic clergyman.
It seems to me that the "Anonymous Posts Allowed" subforum ought to be limited--with vigorous enforcement by the moderators--to users who otherwise could be easily identified, but have matters of Catholicism that they feel an urgent need to discuss, e.g.:
I was serving Mass at my SSPX chapel Sunday, and the pastor preached that because we 'recognize' Advocate cover-boy Francis as our pope, in charity we should not 'resist' the recent Supreme-Court ruling on 'marriage'--I'm so upset, should I continue to serve Mass there?
Altho' I suppose it wouldn't be anonymous enough for an altar-server, whom the pastor could identify from a schedule, but perhaps enough for another regular volunteer or forward pew-sitter.
I'm mystified that this topic hasn't yet been locked, despite passing 100 replies. So altho' I haven't finished reading it, I'm taking the unusual--for me--step of submitting a protest before it can be locked out.
-
I am at no variance with you, my fellow anonymous poster.
Rather, it is just as disturbing to me because quite frankly, it was the Charismatic movement itself that had brought me out of the Novus Ordo.
And to hear that these same people who had so scandalized me by their behavior are to be accepted into the Catholic Church, as a somewhat equal to those individuals who earnestly seek truth and purity of doctrine is quite alarming.
I just thank Our Lord Jesus Christ that:
a) The hypocrisy of pseudo-traditionalists can be exposed.
and,
b) the revelation that the "traditional movement" needs to start being more traditional as far as "gender relations" are concerned.
Women need to zip their lips. And men need to be more dominant about it.
There's a common understanding that it is feminized men that inhabit the Novus Ordo...
Well, sons, look at yourself first. Your letting your women run wild.
You all should be ashamed.
-
I have thought this for some time now, at least a year. What I did wrong was write on CAF so that it sounded like I was saying that sedes are not Catholic. What I actually wrote was true but I implied something false. It is true that there are people who question whether sedes are Catholic. And it is true that I have questions about how to describe sedes in terms of theology. It also is true that some people conclude that sedes are not Catholic because sedes are not in union with the pope. However, I implied that this was my personal opinion that sedes are not Catholic. I was deliberately misleading about this.
Jєωιѕн legalism at its finest.
Again--a very good point by "guest." Please own it though.
-
I have thought this for some time now, at least a year. What I did wrong was write on CAF so that it sounded like I was saying that sedes are not Catholic. What I actually wrote was true but I implied something false. It is true that there are people who question whether sedes are Catholic. And it is true that I have questions about how to describe sedes in terms of theology. It also is true that some people conclude that sedes are not Catholic because sedes are not in union with the pope. However, I implied that this was my personal opinion that sedes are not Catholic. I was deliberately misleading about this.
Jayne--I try to take a person at his word. But I call bull$#!+ on that statement. You strongly and clearly implied that marrying a sede would be worse than marrying a Methodist (which is by definition an outright heretic) and you likened sedes to fundamentalists "hand[ing] out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon."
A statement so heavily laced with venom, and we're to believe that that was not "your personal" opinion and that you were "deliberately misleading" CAF readers about your opinion about sedes?!?! I don't buy it, Jayne.
Misleading them why? In the context of that thread and that post, why was it expedient for you to "mislead" CAF readers?
In any event, to deliberately mislead is to lie and we all know who the father of lies is.
But it does not stack up that you were "deliberately misleading" CAF readers. There was absolutely nothing to be gained in the context of that thread and that post by your "deliberately misleading" CAF readers.
Jayne--you're lying to CathInfo readers.
And if you're lying about that post, how do we know whether your lying about coming around to a more Catholic perspective on charismatics or anything else. You are deceitful and conniving, you are not shy (but are sly) to present your input, you are quick to accept the novel yet slow to even feign the persuasion of tradition, and, thus, you are a danger to the souls of unwary fora readers.
-
I can't view this. [....] Also, I didn't start the thread and stand by my general position that anonymous posts/threads are generally bad form.
Yes, indeed. I have, um, nontrivial doubts about JayneK and whether she belongs on CathInfo. But I strongly believe that a hostile critique of a registered user should never be allowed in the "Anonymous Posts Allowed" (f=18) subforum. Good grief !  CathInfo already allows each of us a nom de plume !  So despite more than 4000 topic-views already, why was I the first to overlook the surprising expression of technical naïveté, and thumb-up the important objection in the above initial reply, which is by someone who is, um, far from being a fan of JayneK?
I think even Jayne deserves the decency of knowing who is speaking against her.
Yes, I strongly concur. The last such topic I replied in was a much worse abuse: A persistent anonymous attack on a traditional Catholic clergyman.
It seems to me that the "Anonymous Posts Allowed" subforum ought to be limited--with vigorous enforcement by the moderators--to users who otherwise could be easily identified, but have matters of Catholicism that they feel an urgent need to discuss, e.g.:
I was serving Mass at my SSPX chapel Sunday, and the pastor preached that because we 'recognize' Advocate cover-boy Francis as our pope, in charity we should not 'resist' the recent Supreme-Court ruling on 'marriage'--I'm so upset, should I continue to serve Mass there?
Altho' I suppose it wouldn't be anonymous enough for an altar-server, whom the pastor could identify from a schedule, but perhaps enough for another regular volunteer or forward pew-sitter.
I'm mystified that this topic hasn't yet been locked, despite passing 100 replies. So altho' I haven't finished reading it, I'm taking the unusual--for me--step of submitting a protest before it can be locked out.
Many good points here, AD.
(have you ever provided info on your nom de plume? just curious how it was selected)
Regarding your statement "I'm mystified that this topic hasn't yet been locked", I thought of asking Matthew to delete it. Please, someone, enlighten me to what good has come from this thread?
But I strongly believe that a hostile critique of a registered user should never be allowed in the "Anonymous Posts Allowed" (f=18) subforum.
^^ This should be a forum rule, imho.
-
OHCA, if you don't believe me then you don't. Nevertheless, please release me from saying that I would stop posting on CAF so that I can post there to make this right.
-
I have thought this for some time now, at least a year. What I did wrong was write on CAF so that it sounded like I was saying that sedes are not Catholic. What I actually wrote was true but I implied something false. It is true that there are people who question whether sedes are Catholic. And it is true that I have questions about how to describe sedes in terms of theology. It also is true that some people conclude that sedes are not Catholic because sedes are not in union with the pope. However, I implied that this was my personal opinion that sedes are not Catholic. I was deliberately misleading about this.
Jayne--I try to take a person at his word. But I call bull$#!+ on that statement. You strongly and clearly implied that marrying a sede would be worse than marrying a Methodist (which is by definition an outright heretic) and you likened sedes to fundamentalists "hand[ing] out tracts about the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon."
A statement so heavily laced with venom, and we're to believe that that was not "your personal" opinion and that you were "deliberately misleading" CAF readers about your opinion about sedes?!?! I don't buy it, Jayne.
Misleading them why? In the context of that thread and that post, why was it expedient for you to "mislead" CAF readers?
In any event, to deliberately mislead is to lie and we all know who the father of lies is.
But it does not stack up that you were "deliberately misleading" CAF readers. There was absolutely nothing to be gained in the context of that thread and that post by your "deliberately misleading" CAF readers.
Jayne--you're lying to CathInfo readers.
And if you're lying about that post, how do we know whether your lying about coming around to a more Catholic perspective on charismatics or anything else. You are deceitful and conniving, you are not shy (but are sly) to present your input, you are quick to accept the novel yet slow to even feign the persuasion of tradition, and, thus, you are a danger to the souls of unwary fora readers.
Quoted For Truth.
-
Please, someone, enlighten me to what good has come from this thread?
This thread has been very good for me. It made me realize that I need to get off of CAF because it is spiritually harmful for me in several ways. It led to me looking at the charismatic movement in more depth and gaining an understanding of the theological problems in involved. This thread has been a great blessing to me.
-
That takes spin to a whole new level...
-
OHCA, if you don't believe me then you don't. Nevertheless, please release me from saying that I would stop posting on CAF so that I can post there to make this right.
Feel free to post whatever you want, Jayne.
-
Regarding your statement "I'm mystified that this topic hasn't yet been locked", I thought of asking Matthew to delete it. Please, someone, enlighten me to what good has come from this thread?
I disagree with the idea that this thread should be deleted. There is significant evidence that Jayne has been quite duplicitous in her interactions on CI and that she holds theological views not shared by traditional Catholics. I believe that spiritual harm can come from her posting on CI, particularly if people are left in the dark as to who she is.
But I am severely disappointed that this thread is in the anonymous section, and consider it a cowardly decision to initiate it there. I wouldn't blame Matthew if he gave all of the anons in this thread the choice of exposure or banishment.
-
The post is on CAF now. I am not sure how long it will be there so look quickly if you want to see it. This is what I wrote:
My conscience is bothering me
Some time ago, a woman posted here asking for advice about her relationship with her sedevacantist boyfriend. I posted in that thread in a way that implied that I think that sedevacantists are not Catholic. This was misleading. Here is my actual view:
I think that the person generally recognized as pope is, in fact, the pope and therefore sedevacantists are objectively mistaken. However, the situation in the Church is sufficiently confusing that it is likely that it is an honest mistake. This is different from knowing who the pope is and rejecting him (which would be formal schism).
I am not sure how to explain it in theological terms. Possibly it is material schism or it might simply be an error of fact about the identity of the pope. I go back and forth on this part. In either case, I do not consider this this is grounds to question whether a person is Catholic, since this is similar to the situation of St. Vincent Ferrer who did not follow the true pope of his time, but an anti-pope.
I am not inviting a discussion on sedevacantism since that is against the forum rules. Please do not respond to this with your thoughts on sedevacantism. I do not want anyone to get in trouble due to this post. I recognize that the moderators may consider this post to be a violation of that rule and accept whatever actions they deem fit. I need to do this because I feel that I have not been honest enough.
-
The post is on CAF now. I am not sure how long it will be there so look quickly if you want to see it. This is what I wrote:
My conscience is bothering me
Some time ago, a woman posted here asking for advice about her relationship with her sedevacantist boyfriend. I posted in that thread in a way that implied that I think that sedevacantists are not Catholic. This was misleading. Here is my actual view:
I think that the person generally recognized as pope is, in fact, the pope and therefore sedevacantists are objectively mistaken. However, the situation in the Church is sufficiently confusing that it is likely that it is an honest mistake. This is different from knowing who the pope is and rejecting him (which would be formal schism).
I am not sure how to explain it in theological terms. Possibly it is material schism or it might simply be an error of fact about the identity of the pope. I go back and forth on this part. In either case, I do not consider this this is grounds to question whether a person is Catholic, since this is similar to the situation of St. Vincent Ferrer who did not follow the true pope of his time, but an anti-pope.
I am not inviting a discussion on sedevacantism since that is against the forum rules. Please do not respond to this with your thoughts on sedevacantism. I do not want anyone to get in trouble due to this post. I recognize that the moderators may consider this post to be a violation of that rule and accept whatever actions they deem fit. I need to do this because I feel that I have not been honest enough.
The post has been removed and I have been banned from CAF.
-
I am at no variance with you, my fellow anonymous poster.
Rather, it is just as disturbing to me because quite frankly, it was the Charismatic movement itself that had brought me out of the Novus Ordo.
And to hear that these same people who had so scandalized me by their behavior are to be accepted into the Catholic Church, as a somewhat equal to those individuals who earnestly seek truth and purity of doctrine is quite alarming.
I just thank Our Lord Jesus Christ that:
a) The hypocrisy of pseudo-traditionalists can be exposed.
and,
b) the revelation that the "traditional movement" needs to start being more traditional as far as "gender relations" are concerned.
Women need to zip their lips. And men need to be more dominant about it.
There's a common understanding that it is feminized men that inhabit the Novus Ordo...
Well, sons, look at yourself first. Your letting your women run wild.
You all should be ashamed.
I do not think I could have written it any better myself, fellow anon.
-
I am at no variance with you, my fellow anonymous poster.
Rather, it is just as disturbing to me because quite frankly, it was the Charismatic movement itself that had brought me out of the Novus Ordo.
And to hear that these same people who had so scandalized me by their behavior are to be accepted into the Catholic Church, as a somewhat equal to those individuals who earnestly seek truth and purity of doctrine is quite alarming.
I just thank Our Lord Jesus Christ that:
a) The hypocrisy of pseudo-traditionalists can be exposed.
and,
b) the revelation that the "traditional movement" needs to start being more traditional as far as "gender relations" are concerned.
Women need to zip their lips. And men need to be more dominant about it.
There's a common understanding that it is feminized men that inhabit the Novus Ordo...
Well, sons, look at yourself first. Your letting your women run wild.
You all should be ashamed.
I do not think I could have written it any better myself, fellow anon.
Likewise :applause:
-
I am at no variance with you, my fellow anonymous poster.
Rather, it is just as disturbing to me because quite frankly, it was the Charismatic movement itself that had brought me out of the Novus Ordo.
And to hear that these same people who had so scandalized me by their behavior are to be accepted into the Catholic Church, as a somewhat equal to those individuals who earnestly seek truth and purity of doctrine is quite alarming.
I just thank Our Lord Jesus Christ that:
a) The hypocrisy of pseudo-traditionalists can be exposed.
and,
b) the revelation that the "traditional movement" needs to start being more traditional as far as "gender relations" are concerned.
Women need to zip their lips. And men need to be more dominant about it.
There's a common understanding that it is feminized men that inhabit the Novus Ordo...
Well, sons, look at yourself first. You're* letting your women run wild.
You all should be ashamed.
I do not think I could have written it any better myself, fellow anon.
Likewise :applause:
*sorry that bothered me... should have noticed it.
Thank you both for the kind remarks.
-
I have a sense of peace now that I am done with CAF and a feeling of closure about this thread. I think that I have done a pretty good job of keeping a low profile here for the past year and I want to return to obscurity now. I am going to try confining myself to "speaking only when spoken to" for a while and I'll see how that works. It should limit the time I spend posting and keep me out of trouble.
-
In the very beginning Matthew says the following;
In all things, charity -- we can never dispense ourselves from the law of Charity. Christ desires that all men be saved, and no one on earth is worthy of our hatred. Only the devils in hell may be hated. Since the Church does not declare anyone to be in Hell, we may only pray for the deceased -- not hate them. When disagreeing with other members of the forum, we must keep in mind that we will be judged on how much we loved God, and by extension our fellow men. God loves us with the highest kind of love, so the closer we draw to God, the more WE will love our fellow men as well. This was displayed again and again in the lives of the Saints. On this heading, telling other members that they are hell-bound, or other egregious uncharitable behavior, is not tolerated.
I don't know whether or not JayneK is a follower of the Charasmatic Renewal. However I think we should follow Matthew's counsel and try to be a little more charitable in our approach to her.
-
Women need to zip their lips. And men need to be more dominant about it. There's a common understanding that it is feminized men that inhabit the Novus Ordo... Well, sons, look at yourself first. Your letting your women run wild. You all should be ashamed.
I do not think I could have written it any better myself, fellow anon.
Hmmm. Maybe you did write it yourself, but you couldn't resist the temptation to indulge yourself in a cynical hint that all of the apparently multiple cowardly anonymous "Guest"s are really all one and the same?  We readers have no way to be certain.
 Your You're* letting your women run wild. You all should be ashamed.
I do not think I could have written it any better myself, fellow anon.
Likewise  :applause:
*sorry that bothered me ... should have noticed it. Thank you both for the kind remarks.
Really?  How many "me" and "you" are there?  It should now be really clear that the postings of the cowardly anonymous "Guest"s are indistinguishable from postings made by sock puppets: Maybe there's still only 1 actual coward out there behind the multiple indistinguishable anonymous "Guest"s. Aside from the "Guest"s, only the owner-moderator(s) of CathInfo can know for certain.
For readers unfamiliar with the computing term above, I'll vouch in this specific instance for a source that we should have trepidation about trusting in matters of religion:
Sockpuppet_(Internet)[/url])]A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.
That original meaning is still valid. And we might have an excellent example right now, right here in this CathInfo forum.
-
Really? How many "me" and "you" are there? It should now be really clear that the postings of the cowardly anonymous "Guest"s are indistinguishable from postings made by sock puppets: Maybe there's still only 1 actual coward out there behind the multiple indistinguishable anonymous "Guest"s. Aside from the "Guest"s, only the owner-moderator(s) of CathInfo can know for certain.
excellent analysis. Sock puppet behavior is common on forums where anonymity is permitted. From time to time I notice here- this is a good illustration.
-
My advice to JayneK would be to continue participating at the Catholic Answers forum. I don't know all the details but she may just be on a quest for knowledge journey and is seeing what the novus ordites have to say about Catholicism and the Faith.
-
Women need to zip their lips. And men need to be more dominant about it. There's a common understanding that it is feminized men that inhabit the Novus Ordo... Well, sons, look at yourself first. Your letting your women run wild. You all should be ashamed.
I do not think I could have written it any better myself, fellow anon.
Hmmm. Maybe you did write it yourself, but you couldn't resist the temptation to indulge yourself in a cynical hint that all of the apparently multiple cowardly anonymous "Guest"s are really all one and the same?  We readers have no way to be certain.
 Your You're* letting your women run wild. You all should be ashamed.
I do not think I could have written it any better myself, fellow anon.
Likewise  :applause:
*sorry that bothered me ... should have noticed it. Thank you both for the kind remarks.
Really?  How many "me" and "you" are there?  It should now be really clear that the postings of the cowardly anonymous "Guest"s are indistinguishable from postings made by sock puppets: Maybe there's still only 1 actual coward out there behind the multiple indistinguishable anonymous "Guest"s. Aside from the "Guest"s, only the owner-moderator(s) of CathInfo can know for certain.
For readers unfamiliar with the computing term above, I'll vouch in this specific instance for a source that we should have trepidation about trusting in matters of religion:
Sockpuppet_(Internet)[/url])]A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.
That original meaning is still valid. And we might have an excellent example right now, right here in this CathInfo forum.
Are you talking to me ?
If so let me know...All my comments are named and the other, because I didn't check the box, I pointed out afterwards.
Go back to the playground. First, the heretic is the duplicitous character here, if you don't like the anonymous posts by the other users complain to the forum moderator, that is the hierarchy's purpose.
False witness is a mortal sin, just to remind you.
-
Are you talking to me ?
If so let me know...All my comments are named and the other, because I didn't check the box, I pointed out afterwards.
Go back to the playground. First, the heretic is the duplicitous character here, if you don't like the anonymous posts by the other users complain to the forum moderator, that is the hierarchy's purpose.
False witness is a mortal sin, just to remind you.
Għalaq ħalqek, idjota.
-
Are you talking to me ?
If so let me know...All my comments are named and the other, because I didn't check the box, I pointed out afterwards.
Go back to the playground. First, the heretic is the duplicitous character here, if you don't like the anonymous posts by the other users complain to the forum moderator, that is the hierarchy's purpose.
False witness is a mortal sin, just to remind you.
Għalaq ħalqek, idjota.
Go mind your business Maltese, and go bark elsewhere like the most famous representative, besides the masons, of your little island.
-
Definitely channeling a little glaston. "Hide" is quite nice for these types.
-
Definitely channeling a little glaston. "Hide" is quite nice for these types.
Let me guess, female ?
All you do is protect the Maltese and other heretics, and in this case, someone who attacked me completely gratuitously, as I wasn't even talking to him.
The other guy is falsely accusing me of writing something that I didn't.
I invoke moderation here. Tell these guys that I didn't write those comments. Otherwise you are complicity in this injustice, as the accuser didn't take back his words after I inquired him to do it.
After that, you all go to the confession for sinning against God.
-
If BTNYC is a "heretic", then Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the pillar of all Catholic truth. Such a baseless accusation.
Go away, troll.
-
Most likely. He is a heretic because he promotes another heretic. I'm sure I could come up with more heresies but that is enough.
Or as you say, at least material heretic, whatever :roll-laugh1: I, warned him and he didn't listen to so ...
:heretic:
BRCatholic Here
-
Please, someone, enlighten me to what good has come from this thread?
This thread has been very good for me. It made me realize that I need to get off of CAF because it is spiritually harmful for me in several ways. It led to me looking at the charismatic movement in more depth and gaining an understanding of the theological problems in involved. This thread has been a great blessing to me.
That is very good. I'll pray for you.
-
For the record, I can also state that that conversation was not between myself and I.
-
Are you talking to me ?
If the sock fits, wear it! :roll-laugh1:
Thank you for the explanation of sock puppet, AD.
-
BRCatholic, you are obviously out of your element here. I too doubt if you will be around for long.
You are attacking two of our most highly respected, orthodox and articulate posters, BT and Evangelica. (No prize for guessing that the latter is a woman).
Have you familiarised yourself the road rules?
Here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/CathInfo-rules-refresher-and-summary
-
BRCatholic, you are obviously out of your element here. I too doubt if you will be around for long.
You are attacking two of our most highly respected, orthodox and articulate posters, BT and Evangelica. (No prize for guessing that the latter is a woman).
Have you familiarised yourself the road rules?
Here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/CathInfo-rules-refresher-and-summary
Are you ready to ask forgiveness to me and specially to God ?
If they are the most highly respected, orthodox imagine the others. Ohh I see, that is what this post is all about, calling out a "trad" that thinks it's okay to be charismatic.
I wonder why that is the case...
You should because as I pointed out you, you committed a mortal sin and should go to confession.
The Maltese is a heretic, I've explained already and he is always attacking me using foul language and gratuitously. Little maltese dog that he is, always barking.
About the other being a girl, that was not surprise, even the so-called males here are quite girly.
Please moderator don't sin by omission, tell them that I didn't do those comments so they can go to the confession.
(http://d21vu35cjx7sd4.cloudfront.net/dims3/MMAH/crop/0x0%2B0%2B0/resize/645x380/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fassets.prod.vetstreet.com%2F7b%2F5d0b90a38811e087a80050568d634f%2Ffile%2FMaltese-1-645mk062111.jpg)
Au Au !
-
In the very beginning Matthew says the following;
In all things, charity -- we can never dispense ourselves from the law of Charity. Christ desires that all men be saved, and no one on earth is worthy of our hatred. Only the devils in hell may be hated. Since the Church does not declare anyone to be in Hell, we may only pray for the deceased -- not hate them. When disagreeing with other members of the forum, we must keep in mind that we will be judged on how much we loved God, and by extension our fellow men. God loves us with the highest kind of love, so the closer we draw to God, the more WE will love our fellow men as well. This was displayed again and again in the lives of the Saints. On this heading, telling other members that they are hell-bound, or other egregious uncharitable behavior, is not tolerated.
I don't know whether or not JayneK is a follower of the Charasmatic Renewal. However I think we should follow Matthew's counsel and try to be a little more charitable in our approach to her.
What a beautiful post! :rahrah:
I'm so sorry that few agree with you, but that just shows the stature of their spirit.
-
BRCatholic, I don't know what you wrote because I did put you on "Hide", but from Nadir's comment, I deduce something unfriendly :jumping2:
For what it's worth, this is why I hide your comments - you shoot buckshot. You make <often incorrect> deductions about member comments and bring out the shotgun for an overkill attack, instead of polite engagement and/or waiting for a clarifying response. This thread is an excellent example. AD didn't accuse you of being a sock puppet (I don't think so either - not your style) but I deduce you went postal again.
Coming in with guns a'blazin', shooting up the saloon, is not a good strategy. Maybe try a more patient approach.
(Nadir thanks but I'm not anywhere near the category of member as most others - I'm just soaking up the wisdom here)
-
BRCatholic, I don't know what you wrote because I did put you on "Hide", but from Nadir's comment, I deduce something unfriendly :jumping2:
For what it's worth, this is why I hide your comments - you shoot buckshot. You make <often incorrect> deductions about member comments and bring out the shotgun for an overkill attack, instead of polite engagement and/or waiting for a clarifying response. This thread is an excellent example. AD didn't accuse you of being a sock puppet (I don't think so either - not your style) but I deduce you went postal again.
Coming in with guns a'blazin', shooting up the saloon, is not a good strategy. Maybe try a more patient approach.
(Nadir thanks but I'm not anywhere near the category of member as most others - I'm just soaking up the wisdom here)
Spoken like a true Catholic lady, with all due modesty, civility, and common sense.
Or don't you see honor in Catholic womanhood, BR? You're not a married fellow, I take it? That might explain much.
-
I see specially when they know their place and don't talk about what they don't know, very rare nowadays.
About female or males who defend heretics, no I do not see honor in them. Quite the contrary.
"Even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him."
Pope Paul IV
"As it is completely absurd and improper in the utmost that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal servitude, can under the pretext that pious Christians must accept them and sustain their habitation, are so ungrateful to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return contumely, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve..."
Pope Paul IV
It doesn't sound like girl talking here ...
:heretic:
-
I see specially when they know their place and don't talk about what they don't know, very rare nowadays.
About female or males who defend heretics, no I do not see honor in them. Quite the contrary.
"Even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him."
Pope Paul IV
"As it is completely absurd and improper in the utmost that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal servitude, can under the pretext that pious Christians must accept them and sustain their habitation, are so ungrateful to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return contumely, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve..."
Pope Paul IV
It doesn't sound like girl talking here ...
:heretic:
More non-sequiturs from the lonely, bitter little man.
-
My advice to JayneK would be to continue participating at the Catholic Answers forum. I don't know all the details but she may just be on a quest for knowledge journey and is seeing what the novus ordites have to say about Catholicism and the Faith.
Too late, CAF justifiably banned her. Plenty of we heathens at CAF knew that Floresco was JayneK and that her postings there did not reflect those here and at FE. What yet isn't clear is exactly who was duped. How she could be so naive or careless to think we couldn't see right through her is beyond me.
Her contributions to this thread are the saddest case of on-line grovelling I have seen.
I sincerely hope she seeks the professional and spiritual help she so sorely needs. Her family deserves better. I will keep her in my prayers.
-
I see specially when they know their place and don't talk about what they don't know, very rare nowadays.
About female or males who defend heretics, no I do not see honor in them. Quite the contrary.
"Even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him."
Pope Paul IV
"As it is completely absurd and improper in the utmost that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal servitude, can under the pretext that pious Christians must accept them and sustain their habitation, are so ungrateful to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return contumely, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve..."
Pope Paul IV
It doesn't sound like girl talking here ...
:heretic:
You're not the Grand Inquisitor for CathInfo.
That would be me.
Enough of dishing out the charge of "heretic" to all and sundry.
-
I see specially when they know their place and don't talk about what they don't know, very rare nowadays.
About female or males who defend heretics, no I do not see honor in them. Quite the contrary.
"Even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him."
Pope Paul IV
"As it is completely absurd and improper in the utmost that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal servitude, can under the pretext that pious Christians must accept them and sustain their habitation, are so ungrateful to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return contumely, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve..."
Pope Paul IV
It doesn't sound like girl talking here ...
:heretic:
You're not the Grand Inquisitor for CathInfo.
That would be me.
Enough of dishing out the charge of "heretic" to all and sundry.
I was unjustly accused. You better tell them about that so they can confess. I never denied that you are in charge, so do your job.
BRCatholic here. Forgot it again.
-
My advice to JayneK would be to continue participating at the Catholic Answers forum. I don't know all the details but she may just be on a quest for knowledge journey and is seeing what the novus ordites have to say about Catholicism and the Faith.
Too late, CAF justifiably banned her. Plenty of we heathens at CAF knew that Floresco was JayneK and that her postings there did not reflect those here and at FE. What yet isn't clear is exactly who was duped. How she could be so naive or careless to think we couldn't see right through her is beyond me.
Her contributions to this thread are the saddest case of on-line grovelling I have seen.
I sincerely hope she seeks the professional and spiritual help she so sorely needs. Her family deserves better. I will keep her in my prayers.
The one who was duped was me. I had deceived myself into thinking that what I was doing was OK. This thread made me realize that it was not and that I had to make a choice between trad forums and CAF. It should be clear which I chose.
-
[...] when they know their place and don't talk about what they don't know, very rare nowadays.
What an wonderful coïncidence !  I'm confident that many people who've actively posted for many years on Internet forums--and before that, on USENet forums--would agree that exactly the same words apply to newbies. Especially newbies who display an aggressive & belligerent persona.
I fear that more than a few of us in CathInfo may be losing our perspective that this topic was created for review, analysis, and comment on-&-by the, um, controversial JayneK.
Although this topic here was unjustly originated in the anonymous coward-&-provocateur-friendly "Anonymous Posts Allowed" forum, it should not be allowed to be hijacked by frothing text from the newbie flamer BRCatholic.
As a remedy, I recommend we move all posting content that's by or replying to BRCatholic into a new topic in the "General Discussion" forum
    Flamingly fast start by BRCatholic (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Flamingly-fast-start-by-BRCatholic)
-------
Note *: Absent any forum that seems to've been created to confine episodes of personal modernist narcissism, e.g.: an "It's All About Me" forum.
-
My advice to JayneK would be to continue participating at the Catholic Answers forum. I don't know all the details but she may just be on a quest for knowledge journey and is seeing what the novus ordites have to say about Catholicism and the Faith.
Too late, CAF justifiably banned her. Plenty of we heathens at CAF knew that Floresco was JayneK and that her postings there did not reflect those here and at FE. What yet isn't clear is exactly who was duped. How she could be so naive or careless to think we couldn't see right through her is beyond me.
Her contributions to this thread are the saddest case of on-line grovelling I have seen.
I sincerely hope she seeks the professional and spiritual help she so sorely needs. Her family deserves better. I will keep her in my prayers.
...I had deceived myself into thinking that what I was doing was OK...
...It should be clear which I chose...
Cut the crap Jayne. You had not "deceived yourself" at all--the modern, liberal, novel is acceptable by default in your eyes--tradition, on the other hand, requires a tremendous burden of proof to convince you. You took to the acceptance of trannyism and charismatics like a duck to water.
Clear which you chose? Not so much in my discerning mind. You can do more damage in our midst than ostracized from us--just look what the freemasons and jews did to the Church via infiltration. Besides, you could already be back on CAF as Jayensco. Not saying you are--but that can't be ruled out. In light of your history, unfortunately very little can be "clear" or certain regarding you.
-
Fair enough... But let be registered here that I was falsely accused and that you did an accusation without any support of evidence.
And, I (also another poster) claim that you are lying and thus implying in mortal sin that need to be confessed. With other enthusiasts.
I'm open to answer your questions in your recently created topic. But don't expect lukewarmness or cowardice. If you gonna state something, be direct and straight, without diverting from the substantial matter. Also I'm warning that is a complete waste of time because I was just stating the truth in all my previous posts. Just do your research and you will see who is the aggressor here.
But as I'm not Jєωιѕн I don't cry or pretend to be a victim, this is defeatist behavior, and the battle was over long ago with my side winning triumphantly.
Also, I state that this topic is being hijacked, in your terms, by diverting criticism from the main subject of this topic by the people attacking me gratuitously, you included.
-
My advice to JayneK would be to continue participating at the Catholic Answers forum. I don't know all the details but she may just be on a quest for knowledge journey and is seeing what the novus ordites have to say about Catholicism and the Faith.
Too late, CAF justifiably banned her. Plenty of we heathens at CAF knew that Floresco was JayneK and that her postings there did not reflect those here and at FE. What yet isn't clear is exactly who was duped. How she could be so naive or careless to think we couldn't see right through her is beyond me.
Her contributions to this thread are the saddest case of on-line grovelling I have seen.
I sincerely hope she seeks the professional and spiritual help she so sorely needs. Her family deserves better. I will keep her in my prayers.
JayneK coming across as a faker to both sides, now that is cross-over appeal!
-
My advice to JayneK would be to continue participating at the Catholic Answers forum. I don't know all the details but she may just be on a quest for knowledge journey and is seeing what the novus ordites have to say about Catholicism and the Faith.
Too late, CAF justifiably banned her. Plenty of we heathens at CAF knew that Floresco was JayneK and that her postings there did not reflect those here and at FE. What yet isn't clear is exactly who was duped. How she could be so naive or careless to think we couldn't see right through her is beyond me.
Her contributions to this thread are the saddest case of on-line grovelling I have seen.
I sincerely hope she seeks the professional and spiritual help she so sorely needs. Her family deserves better. I will keep her in my prayers.
...I had deceived myself into thinking that what I was doing was OK...
...It should be clear which I chose...
Cut the crap Jayne. You had not "deceived yourself" at all--the modern, liberal, novel is acceptable by default in your eyes--tradition, on the other hand, requires a tremendous burden of proof to convince you. You took to the acceptance of trannyism and charismatics like a duck to water.
Clear which you chose? Not so much in my discerning mind. You can do more damage in our midst than ostracized from us--just look what the freemasons and jews did to the Church via infiltration. Besides, you could already be back on CAF as Jayensco. Not saying you are--but that can't be ruled out. In light of your history, unfortunately very little can be "clear" or certain regarding you.
QFT. See also:
Will this satisfy people?
This[/u] is exactly why you have these issues right now.
It's human respect.
Women: let this woman be an example to all of you to emulate our Blessed Mother and Ever Virgin Mary by keeping quiet and modest.
For your sex has the tendency to be frivolous and talkative.
Take it one step further: the truth takes a backseat to social acceptability for her. Why be so passive about membership at CAF? She already agrees with them. CI is what must needs change, thus the effort to maintain some modicuм of acceptability, however threadbare.
If any further proof is required, look at the Charismatics issue. On CAF, totally unprompted to mention anything about them, she writes that the Church should "make room" for them and Trads, not as if these two groups are equal, but showing that to her they are equal. Then, to explain it away on CI, she claims it was merely the fact that popes approved of them that she did not consider them heretical. So she has gone from saying that the Church should make room for them to that they are not heretical. But since that is still not quite kosher here, there is more backpedaling to do.
If you want to buy in to the new sincerity posts, go ahead. While you're at it, I have a bridge to sell you.
-
Sorry but I still don't get what is all the fuss about? Why is Jaynek important and why should I care at all about her? There are a thousand heretics spreading all kind of nonsense all around internet fora
-
Fair enough... But let be registered here that I was falsely accused and that you did an accusation without any support of evidence.
And, I (also another poster) claim that you are lying and thus implying in mortal sin that need to be confessed. With other enthusiasts.
I'm open to answer your questions in your recently created topic. But don't expect lukewarmness or cowardice. If you gonna state something, be direct and straight, without diverting from the substantial matter. Also I'm warning that is a complete waste of time because I was just stating the truth in all my previous posts. Just do your research and you will see who is the aggressor here.
But as I'm not Jєωιѕн I don't cry or pretend to be a victim, this is defeatist behavior, and the battle was over long ago with my side winning triumphantly.
Also, I state that this topic is being hijacked, in your terms, by diverting criticism from the main subject of this topic by the people attacking me gratuitously, you included.
Because you're accusing people of heresy when it was completely baseless and unneeded.
If you see someone on the forum actively denying a dogma, then yes, call them a heretic. If anything, that's the best course of action.
That being said, 99.999999% of us are following the Faith whole and inviolate, so calling us heretics is redundant.
-
Clear which you chose? Not so much in my discerning mind. You can do more damage in our midst than ostracized from us--just look what the freemasons and jews did to the Church via infiltration. Besides, you could already be back on CAF as Jayensco. Not saying you are--but that can't be ruled out. In light of your history, unfortunately very little can be "clear" or certain regarding you.
I have been here over 4 years. What damage have I done here in that time? On occasion, I have created some drama and written some stupid stuff. This forum seems completely unaffected.
And that was at my worst. Now I have understood that I have no business trying to teach and should be approaching the forum as a learner who rarely posts. How much damage can I do as a quiet poster with a bunch of people ready to jump on me if I get out of line?
Matthew, as always, has the right to kick me out. If there is some good reason to do so, you should tell him.
-
...Now I have understood that I have no business trying to teach and should be approaching the forum as a learner who rarely posts...
This is like déjà vu all over again.
-
...Now I have understood that I have no business trying to teach and should be approaching the forum as a learner who rarely posts...
This is like déjà vu all over again.
It should sound familiar. This is how I have thought for over a year now. And that is what I have been like. I have not been posting anything controversial or unorthodox. I have avoided drawing attention to myself and creating drama. I sometimes go weeks between posts.
I did not start this thread and I did not choose the attention it has drawn to me. Somebody else imported my controversial statements from elsewhere. Once this thread ends, I will go back to being a person that most people do not even notice is here. It was just that I be exposed and rebuked, but hasn't there been enough yet?
-
It was just that I be exposed and rebuked, but hasn't there been enough yet?
Yes! It seems masochistic to me to keep stomping on the dead horse.
-
Sorry, I used the wrong word. It should be "sadistic."
-
Jayne,
If you decided “a year ago” to post on Catholic discussion forums, plural, in a very different style, with different intentions, then why were you banned from CAF only eight days ago? I checked your very recent posting history on CAF. In addition to your legitimate participation in the linguistic aspects of Latin on the thread, “Advice for Learning Latin” (you are a linguist, after all), you nevertheless are all over the map with posts on matters you are hardly expert in: The OF, the EF, the GIRM, the SPPV, “A Church Divided,” canonical discussions, validity of various Masses, other aspects of sacramental theology – all less than a year ago, and some less than a month ago.
What I say is meant not as an attack, a “piling on,” or as scapegoating. I have followed your posts on many forums for many years -- forums I have also joined, in some cases. I offer my perspective as a life-long Catholic who was blessed to grow up with Tradition and was spared all the modern confusion and contradictory “opinions” which mistakenly substitute for truth in the contemporary Church.
I’m concerned that your approach to learning the Faith – when you have so very much to learn -- tends to be the same “quickie” approach that the standard N.O. parish uses. You seem to be in some kind of hurry to earn your “Catholic cred,” but I’ve never understood why you insist on rushing to establish some kind of expertise. It can’t be learned overnight., and learning Traditional Catholicism comes before learning about all the politics inside the Church, being able to differentiate one group from another, and being concerned with having to defend what your “political” identity is and is not.. All this Church politics stuff is for someone who already knows what he or she is talking about. It seems that your eagerness to post on many subjects above your knowledge is part of your wish to be “helpful,” but I think it backfires, because it puts you in a defensive position when your “knowledge” is thin.
I think that asking questions, and merely posting articles for discussion – as you did today on another forum – can be an excellent path as a learner. But none of us, myself included, should regard discussion forums as the central way to learn our Faith. Discussion forums consume a lot of time –much of it talking on a cursory level about much deeper realities. Juggling among forums and juggling personalities there while trying to convince all of the users that you understand refined theological differences is, I think, working against you. That’s because, in this back-and-forth habit, you then set yourself up to defend your own statements, some of which appear to contradict each other. It would make no more sense than if I were a recent convert to Judaism and went ѕуηαgσgυє-hopping among Chasidic, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist groups, yet claimed to be an insider about all the differences among them – not to mention simultaneously learning about both ancient and Rabbinic Judaism. Or if I decided to become a journalistic expert in the politics and religion of Muslim countries and proclaimed expertise long before I understood how the Sufis differ from other Muslims (and how Sufis may be outside Islam altogether), how the Shiites differ from the Suunis, and without a reliable understanding of traditional Islam before ISIS and similar groups emerged..
Flitting around discussion forums puts you at risk. It makes you more visible but not “more Catholic.” And I think that’s the central problem. I think that you believe you must be very active on discussion forums in order to become authentically Catholic. Maybe I’m wrong. It just appears that way to me.
In your defense, I don’t think that you are deliberately “duplicitous.” Rather, I think your “multiple identities” are the consequence of dipping your toes here and there while essentially skating on the surface and not diving in deeply. You don’t have to be “in the know” about all the politics in the Catholic Church, and it’s risky to pretend to be. Even long-standing or cradle trads, much more acquainted with the Faith than you, might know a lot about one Society but little about another. Those differences are not what’s important about Traditional Catholicism. And participation in discussion forums is not anything essential to Catholic belief or practice.
There are also many areas of knowledge in the Church. Some of these, each requiring significant study, are:
Systematics
Sacramental Theology
Scriptural Theology
Church history
Spirituality
Catholic philosophy, including Thomism. (Without understanding basic Thomism, it is virtually impossible to understand Traditional Catholicism.)
Each one of those takes years of study to qualify one as an expert who is in a position to hand out advice to others. Learning traditional Catholicism is not a desperate competition, but sometimes you appear to post as if it is. And posting on controversial topics such as politics and alliances and theological differences between the Conciliar and Traditional Church, about which you are still a novice, is putting the cart before the horse.
Finally, it’s really important to put everything in perspective relative to our salvation. Arguments on forums (as opposed to other aspects of forums) also tempt us to Pride, Vanity, Envy, Anger, and other vices. (I get caught in that trap myself!) You yourself can see how much time you’ve had to take extending arguments because of what you have posted. Please take my advice to heart, as it is meant out of charity and concern for your faith journey. 1 Corinthians 2:2
-
There is much wisdom in what you shared MMagdala, and all of us could take some of it to heart - seriously! Thank you.
-
Thank you very much MMagdala for your analysis and advice. I found it very helpful.
I think that one of the attractions of CAF for me was that I felt I could talk with an aura of expertise there that I knew I did not have on trad forums. I treated it as an exception because they are primarily not trads. But I can see that you are right that I should not assume expertise anywhere.
I do not actually believe that time spent on forums makes me more authentically Catholic, although I can understand how one would get that impression. I have chronic health issues that limit my real life interactions and activities, so I compensate online.
I have been working on cutting down the time I spend on forums. My activity has gone down but it is still not as low as I want it to be. I agree with what you said about this and just about everything you wrote and appreciate you making the effort to share your insights and concern.
-
Haven't read this, I am sure it's a rehash of what's been said a million times before. I just have to say that I find it fascinating how Jayne is the only person online who is not allowed to have an opinion, contribute or take part, who is consistently told to shut up, that she knows nothing etc... I am continuously blown away by how free everyone feels to tell her to be quiet. We are online! Everyone talks too much! Everyone assumes expertise! Everyone creates drama! We give ourselves and people we "like" so many passes, but Jayne, Jayne has to be quiet.
Everyone gets "put in their place" at some time or other, whether rightly or wrongly. But not as much as Jayne. I have yet to see anyone subjected to it for years on end the way she is, even when she barely posts. So odd.
It's like there's a Bash JayneK Committee out there that meets once per quarter and decides Oh it's that time again! Present all the evidence! And then all the well-meaning people jump in too -- with great advice mind you -- but still contributing to a strange big picture.
I really do not get it.
-
I'm sorry that you believe I "bashed " Jayne. and told her to "shut up."
-
Well you could have assumed you were in the category of well-meaning with good advice ... I said nothing of you in particular. But if you have followed her through many forums for many years, as you say, then you must know exactly what I am talking about. Whether your or anyone else's concern is genuine or not, whether the words written are nice or not, the intent to have her sit quietly in the corner is the same and you know it as well as I do.
Sometimes sitting quietly in the corner IS the right thing to do, that is not necessarily my objection. I am just in awe of how many people feel free to voice that to her over and over and over again, while the rest of us are adult enough to make our own decisions re: when and where to post and managing our time online.
-
Well , since I posted exactly once , I do not believe I can be accused. of doing anything. "over and over and over again," but thank you for such a warm welcome to CI.
-
Well , since I posted exactly once , I do not believe I can be accused. of doing anything. "over and over and over again," but thank you for such a warm welcome to CI.
I do hope you will stick around, MMagdala. I like your style.
JayneK has indeed intimated that the best thing for her is to metaphorically "sit quietly in the corner', and she seems to appreciate criticisms.
Personally, I am a cradle Catholic from devout and informed Catholic stock and I lived 22 years approx before the rot set in; I took Catholicism in with my Mother's milk, and I do think twice before I jump in to "teach" others.
Besides, Jayne must have her work cut out if that is not a very old photo for her avatar. I am staggered that a wife and mother can do justice to family and participate in so many forums.
Also, Jayne, I think I read that you are studying theology, and I wonder what course this is. There a few dodgy ones out there.
This comment is made after much thought and with kindness towards Jayne, for whom I am praying.
-
This comment is made after much thought and with kindness towards Jayne, for whom I am praying.
I just thought that was worth highlighting. "Nadir style" !
-
Nadir, thank you for your kind words and prayers.
My avatar is not a recent picture. Most of my children are adults now. The two youngest are in their teens. That is the last picture of my family before we started adding my children's spouses and children.
I am not currently studying theology. I received a degree in 2001. In my first years on trad forums I foolishly thought this gave me some sort of authority. I eventually came to realize how wrong I was. My studies exposed me to massive amounts of modernism. I am one of the people least qualified to speak on traditional Catholicism (even leaving aside the fact that I am a woman).
I suspect that a large part of the answer to wallflower's question is that I really really need to sit quietly in the corner. I generated a lot of hostility toward myself during my years on Fisheaters. I made over 15000 posts there. It is going to take a long time for me to overcome my character flaws and bad habits. It is going to take a long time to receive forgiveness from some people, especially when they do not believe my repentance is sincere. And yet I can't blame people for doubting it when I continue to make mistakes.
-
Thank you, Jayne, for clarifying those things which were puzzling me, and in such a humble way. God bless you and your lovely family.
-
Sometimes sitting quietly in the corner IS the right thing to do, that is not necessarily my objection. I am just in awe of how many people feel free to voice that to her over and over and over again, while the rest of us are adult enough to make our own decisions re: when and where to post and managing our time online.
I think it goes back to my time on Fisheaters. I posted there so much and had so much influence that for some people I probably personify the faults of the forum. In our small world of trad forums, I am the equivalent of a notorious public sinner. People need to see more than a verbal apology from me. They understandably want to see a clear change in my behaviour.
Unfortunately, changing my behaviour is a long slow process and it is not always clear to others that I am genuinely trying to do it. Sitting quietly in the corner is the right thing to do because it is probably the clearest thing I can do to show that I understand that I was wrong and that I want to do better. I think that people voice it over and over again because this is what they need to see to be able to forgive me.
I am happy to sit quietly in the corner.
-
No, in part it is because of blatant two-facedness, as demonstrated in the OP. And how Trad forums are meant to be frequented and used by TRADS.
-
I have no excuse for my objectionable CAF posts. I will not post there again. It was weakness rather than deliberate malice.
I think of myself as a trad. Even on CAF, I repeatedly referred to myself as one. If anyone wants to ask me questions about my beliefs and practices to determine whether I am a trad, I will answer.
-
Hey,
if Rachel Dolezal can be black,
and Barry 0bama can be a Christian,
why can't JayneK be a Trad?
'S'all good, right?
-
I fit the Wikipedia defintion of a trad:
Traditionalist Catholics are Roman Catholics who believe that there should be a restoration of many or all of the customs, traditions, liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentations of teaching of the Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962–65). They are commonly associated with an attachment to the Eucharistic liturgy often called the Tridentine, Traditional Latin or extraordinary form of the Mass.
What definition are people using when they say that I am not a trad?
-
I fit the Wikipedia defintion of a trad: Traditionalist Catholics are Roman Catholics who believe that there should be a restoration of many or all of the customs, traditions, liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentations of teaching of the Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962–65). They are commonly associated with an attachment to the Eucharistic liturgy often called the Tridentine, Traditional Latin or extraordinary form of the Mass.
What definition are people using when they say that I am not a trad?
Traditional Catholics believe that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. You are quick to embrace the modern and novel--the modern and novel seem to be acceptable by default in your eyes. And convincing you that a particular modern or novel notion is unacceptable proves quite challenging.
As a couple of examples, you relatively recently supported trannyism (up to and including freaks chopping parts off, if I'm not mistaken) and failed to tell a newbie on another forum purporting to be a trad Catholic forum that the person flirting with him was a tranny/fag/freak; and you very recently thought charismatics are an acceptable movement within Catholicism.
Latching on to the modern and novel is not a Catholic approach--perhaps a "new-age" "catholic" approach--but not a traditional Roman Catholic approach.
-
Traditional Catholics believe that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. You are quick to embrace the modern and novel--the modern and novel seem to be acceptable by default in your eyes. And convincing you that a particular modern or novel notion is unacceptable proves quite challenging.
As a couple of examples, you relatively recently supported trannyism (up to and including freaks chopping parts off, if I'm not mistaken) and failed to tell a newbie on another forum purporting to be a trad Catholic forum that the person flirting with him was a tranny/fag/freak; and you very recently thought charismatics are an acceptable movement within Catholicism.
Latching on to the modern and novel is not a Catholic approach--perhaps a "new-age" "catholic" approach--but not a traditional Roman Catholic approach.
I believe that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. I think it is arguably the greatest evil of our time. It takes the evil of the "Enlightenment" and tries to incorporate it into the Church. I have read the main encyclicals against it several times and made the oath against modernism. I oppose modernism whenever I recognize it.
Unfortunately I do not always recognize it. My formation in the Faith was remarkably bad and I was too proud to understand this about myself until the tranny incident. I had to do something that bad to realize just how ignorant I am. I was raised from childhood to think of myself as smarter than most and my natural tendency is to look down on people. I needed to be that dramatically wrong about something before I could come to my senses. Some people, like in the parable of the prodigal son, have to hit bottom before they can take the right path.
I spent my first years on trad forums being arrogant, argumentative and condescending. I don't blame anyone for disliking me and not wanting me around. I don't blame anyone for losing patience with my mistakes as I try to change. I can't even blame anyone for doubting that I sincerely mean this. I have given cause to dislike and distrust me.
But I love the Church and her traditions. I understand that within tradition is where I can find truth and wisdom and virtue. My failings come from weakness, not from a rejection of tradition. Maybe I don't deserve to be called a trad, but I would nevertheless benefit from being around those who would correct and instruct me.
-
I am not currently studying theology. I received a degree in 2001. In my first years on trad forums I foolishly thought this gave me some sort of authority. I eventually came to realize how wrong I was. My studies exposed me to massive amounts of modernism. I am one of the people least qualified to speak on traditional Catholicism (even leaving aside the fact that I am a woman).
I said to myself that I would keep out of this discussion, but oh well here goes.
As a degree seeking student, you, like everyone who attends the classes you took, you were not merely "exposed to modernism", you were indoctrinated into all things Novus Ordo. This means the Modernism you were otherwise brainwashed into accepting and rationalizing, includes indoctrination into false ecuмenism, indifferentism, liberalism, humanism, Protestantism, Agnosticism, and probably a dozen other "isms" -in short, as Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis teaches, you were taught, "An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion."
So, what is the solution?
We know there have been even NO priests who were put through many years of the modernistic training in modernist universities who were able to overcome their indoctrination and are now trads, celebrating the True Mass and preaching the true faith, also all the lay people who converted to tradition from the NO, so what has been done certainly can be undone.
Aside from the grace of God, I'm not sure how different people are able to overcome this NO attachment, but perhaps the worse the infection, one of the first things one would need to do is develop a healthy hatred and / or perhaps a healthy fear of all things NO. If you do this, it will help to make you avoid all things NO and help encourage complete acceptance of all things traditionally Catholic, which, in no time at all, can cure the infection.
Anyway, fwiw, that's my .02 and you're still in my prayers.
-
Thank you, Stubborn. I remember that you warned me years ago about how damaging my "education" had been. I am finally seeing how right you were.
-
As a couple of examples, you relatively recently supported trannyism (up to and including freaks chopping parts off, if I'm not mistaken) and failed to tell a newbie on another forum purporting to be a trad Catholic forum that the person flirting with him was a tranny/fag/freak; and you very recently thought charismatics are an acceptable movement within Catholicism.
If you compare my responses in these two examples you can see that I have made some progress. I held on arguing for my position on the Impy incident for months. (This was around two years ago.) When told that I was wrong about charismatics, I immediately accepted that was a possibility and tried to find out more. I did not argue at all.
I still need a LOT of work, but there are visible changes.
-
As a couple of examples, you relatively recently supported trannyism (up to and including freaks chopping parts off, if I'm not mistaken) and failed to tell a newbie on another forum purporting to be a trad Catholic forum that the person flirting with him was a tranny/fag/freak; and you very recently thought charismatics are an acceptable movement within Catholicism.
If you compare my responses in these two examples you can see that I have made some progress. I held on arguing for my position on the Impy incident for months. (This was around two years ago.) When told that I was wrong about charismatics, I immediately accepted that was a possibility and tried to find out more. I did not argue at all.
I still need a LOT of work, but there are visible changes.
Good point. That is an improvement.
-
I believe that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it a synthesis of "all" heresies, but what it is is the most comprehensive and consuming of all heresies. It radically and fundamentally opposes the Truth for which Catholicism stands, being that its essential premises are incompatible with Church teaching.
It doesn't surprise me, therefore, when anyone who was catechized after V2 is confused by apparent contradictions in what he or she was taught. The Conciliar Church, and in some ways even more so the very contemporary Church, has tried awkwardly and unsuccessfully to overlay modern language and philosophical assumptions on top of permanent doctrine, explaining the latter by the former. Smart people, while being "catechized" this way, begin vocally questioning the reasons for the teachings (they are, after all, incompatible with modern premises and --especially--with modern language). After approaching others about these conflicts and not being able to reconcile them intellectually, they often openly dissent from Church teaching, not only because of the seeming "illogical" tension within their catechesis, but also because the Church shows, by its obsequious attitude toward the laity, that Catholics have a "right" to question, and that "right" seems to extend to direct challenge and dissent. The delivery of catechesis in the modern mainstream Church most often appears as a set of optional, non-binding suggestions, even with the implication that there's something quaintly historical about them all and therefore the Church doesn't really expect you to take all of it seriously, even while discharging her "duty," albeit perfunctorily.
Add to that the unconvincing, self-referential N.O. liturgy and the refusal of the Conciliar Church to communicate the urgency of praying daily for the three theological virtues -- especially Faith -- and to bring one's doubts -- whether intellectual or spiritual -- into a fervent and regular practice of prayer -- and you end with a recipe for lukewarmness, Indifferentism, Acedia, blurred consciences, an absence of spiritual conviction, and a certain comfort level with serious sin.
I oppose modernism whenever I recognize it.
As you acknowledge just below, you, like many others in your position, often do not recognize it.
Unfortunately I do not always recognize it. My formation in the Faith was remarkably bad and I was too proud to understand this about myself until the tranny incident.
If I were you, I don't know that I would beat myself up about "Pride," given what I said above. Or, to put it another way, if you believe that indeed it was Pride, who enables Pride more, i.m.o. than the modernistic clergy within the Church? Too many of them behave and speak as if it's just swell to make Number One the center of your prayer life, your reasons for attending Mass, the "sifter" of doctrine, and your preferences for Mass "style," etc. They cater to the modern infatuation with ego by commission and omission.
I had to do something that bad to realize just how ignorant I am....[/snip]
It's probably not necessary to wear sackcloth and ashes publicly. We could all do that, but that's probably not too constructive.
But I love the Church and her traditions.
I don't think anyone can or should doubt you in that regard. I believe you are sincere. I believe you want to identify with Tradition and that you want to know Truth. But there's a long learning curve for that and you still have far to go. In order to learn, we all have to listen first, and to exercise self-control over our impulses to make pronouncements, no matter how well-meaning we may be, how "helpful" we want to be. You still do not always recognize the difference between the fundamental aspects of Tradition and certain more external semblances of that. In order not to confuse yourself further, or delay your understanding, it would be best to refrain from "teaching" others about Tradition, whether on CAF, CI, SD, or anywhere.
Maybe I don't deserve to be called a trad, but I would nevertheless benefit from being around those who would correct and instruct me.
Everyone not only "deserves" to learn Tradition and follow it, but should feel impelled to embrace the One true Church and to seek only that. Sacred Tradition is only where that is found.
-
I believe that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it a synthesis of "all" heresies, but what it is is the most comprehensive and consuming of all heresies. It radically and fundamentally opposes the Truth for which Catholicism stands, being that its essential premises are incompatible with Church teaching.
Good post MM, just wanted to highlight one thing....
"....For this reason, too, We have had to give this exposition a somewhat didactic form and not to shrink from employing certain uncouth terms in use among the Modernists. And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it [Modernism] as the synthesis of all heresies?........ Pascendi Dominici Gregis (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html)
-
I believe that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it a synthesis of "all" heresies, but what it is is the most comprehensive and consuming of all heresies. It radically and fundamentally opposes the Truth for which Catholicism stands, being that its essential premises are incompatible with Church teaching.
Good post MM, just wanted to highlight one thing....
"....For this reason, too, We have had to give this exposition a somewhat didactic form and not to shrink from employing certain uncouth terms in use among the Modernists. And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it [Modernism] as the synthesis of all heresies?........ Pascendi Dominici Gregis (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html)
Great catch, Stubborn. Technically, yes, there's no arguing with Pascendi. What I was really talking about is not the theoretical but the practical (the reach of it all, being so pervasive). My bad -- in terms of that distinction --and thanks for the correction!
-
I had to do something that bad to realize just how ignorant I am....[/snip]
It's probably not necessary to wear sackcloth and ashes publicly. We could all do that, but that's probably not too constructive.
But I love the Church and her traditions.
I don't think anyone can or should doubt you in that regard. I believe you are sincere. I believe you want to identify with Tradition and that you want to know Truth. But there's a long learning curve for that and you still have far to go. In order to learn, we all have to listen first, and to exercise self-control over our impulses to make pronouncements, no matter how well-meaning we may be, how "helpful" we want to be. You still do not always recognize the difference between the fundamental aspects of Tradition and certain more external semblances of that. In order not to confuse yourself further, or delay your understanding, it would be best to refrain from "teaching" others about Tradition, whether on CAF, CI, SD, or anywhere.
Maybe I don't deserve to be called a trad, but I would nevertheless benefit from being around those who would correct and instruct me.
Everyone not only "deserves" to learn Tradition and follow it, but should feel impelled to embrace the One true Church and to seek only that. Sacred Tradition is only where that is found.
I do feel like I ought to metaphorically "wear sackcloth and ashes" because I understand my situation within this collection of inter-connected trad forums as comparable to that of a public notorious sinner. Historically, there was an expectation that public sinners had to perform public penance. I noticed that several people used the imagery of a beating to describe the tone of this thread. That seems fitting because it was common for public penance to include beatings.
Maybe I am just being dramatic again and that is a silly way to think about it. But I know that I have done wrong and I am trying to respond in a Catholic way. Just saying that I'm sorry does not seem like enough
At any rate, I will refrain from teaching others about Tradition, as you say. I will try to always keep in mind that I am a person with much to learn.
-
40 pages and 8000+ views on this thread about non other than the ever attention seeking Janek .
I guess severe criticism isn't as fun as adulation and praise. But hey, any port in a storm right?
Well played Janek, looks like you win again...
Janek 1: Cathinfo 0
-
40 pages and 8000+ views on this thread about non other than the ever attention seeking Janek .
I guess severe criticism isn't as fun as adulation and praise. But hey, any port in a storm right?
Well played Janek, looks like you win again...
Janek 1: Cathinfo 0
Honestly! I wrote this earlier,
Hey,
if Rachel Dolezal can be black,
and Barry 0bama can be a Christian,
why can't JayneK be a Trad?
'S'all good, right?
It is not every day politicians are given a run for their money (too appropriate a metaphor?) by the purportedly unassuming Catholic grandmother who is only ever misunderstood, never really wrong. And even when she is wrong, she has to be wrong for all the right reasons.
Cheers to the insanity.
-
If you compare my responses in these two examples you can see that I have made some progress. I held on arguing for my position on the Impy incident for months. (This was around two years ago.) When told that I was wrong about charismatics, I immediately accepted that was a possibility and tried to find out more. I did not argue at all.
I still need a LOT of work, but there are visible changes.
I have to ask... just whose approval are you aiming for? God's? Or this forum's?
Make sure you serve the correct Master...
-
If you compare my responses in these two examples you can see that I have made some progress. I held on arguing for my position on the Impy incident for months. (This was around two years ago.) When told that I was wrong about charismatics, I immediately accepted that was a possibility and tried to find out more. I did not argue at all.
I still need a LOT of work, but there are visible changes.
I have to ask... just whose approval are you aiming for? God's? Or this forum's?
Make sure you serve the correct Master...
I am not looking for approval but for forgiveness. I already received forgiveness from God through the Sacrament of Confession. That is what matters most, but I would still like the people I have wronged here to forgive me.
-
:pray:
May God forgive all of us sinners.
-
If you compare my responses in these two examples you can see that I have made some progress. I held on arguing for my position on the Impy incident for months. (This was around two years ago.) When told that I was wrong about charismatics, I immediately accepted that was a possibility and tried to find out more. I did not argue at all.
I still need a LOT of work, but there are visible changes.
I have to ask... just whose approval are you aiming for? God's? Or this forum's?
Make sure you serve the correct Master...
Yes, the contrition exhibited has so far rung terribly hollow.
-
If you compare my responses in these two examples you can see that I have made some progress. I held on arguing for my position on the Impy incident for months. (This was around two years ago.) When told that I was wrong about charismatics, I immediately accepted that was a possibility and tried to find out more. I did not argue at all.
I still need a LOT of work, but there are visible changes.
I have to ask... just whose approval are you aiming for? God's? Or this forum's?
Make sure you serve the correct Master...
Yes, the contrition exhibited has so far rung terribly hollow.
To an outsider looking in, I have to say it looks more like grovelling to gain acceptance into this group than sincere contrition. In the 20+ years I've been participating on and moderating discussion groups (from the days of listservs), I think her pleadings are the most pathetic thing I have ever seen that I can recall.
Of course I can't read into her heart, but what I can say with certainty is that she seems to be someone in serious need of our prayers (then again aren't we all in need of prayers) and from me, that she can count on.
-
:pray:
May God forgive all of us sinners.
Nice post Poche.
-
I know that you and most others who have posted comments in this thread are well meaning (exceptions noted throughout; i.e., the OP) but I'm surprised that traditional Catholics would use the terms "groveling" and "pathetic" to describe JayneK's responses. Those are worldly/modernist characterizations of a Catholic attempt at humility.
You are right, we can't see into her heart. Because of that, an exhibition of humility (whether or not sincere, no matter, we do not know) should never, ever be met with mockery or criticism. Rather, better for her brothers to continue to reinforce her pledges. To submit oneself without argument to correction (and cruelty in some comments) is virtuous, not pathetic, especially to many of the anonymous hit and runners, who have only used the cloak of darkness to cut her needlessly, and contributed nothing toward her spiritual growth.
I can say with certainty is that she seems to be someone in serious need of our prayers (then again aren't we all in need of prayers) and from me, that she can count on.
Thank you for this reminder of our duty. It's easy to forget amidst the soap opera climate. Charity above all.
I also pray that 41 pages of this is enough.
-
I know that you and most others who have posted comments in this thread are well meaning (exceptions noted throughout; i.e., the OP) but I'm surprised that traditional Catholics would use the terms "groveling" and "pathetic" to describe JayneK's responses. Those are worldly/modernist characterizations of a Catholic attempt at humility.
You are right, we can't see into her heart. Because of that, an exhibition of humility (whether or not sincere, no matter, we do not know) should never, ever be met with mockery or criticism. Rather, better for her brothers to continue to reinforce her pledges. To submit oneself without argument to correction (and cruelty in some comments) is virtuous, not pathetic, especially to many of the anonymous hit and runners, who have only used the cloak of darkness to cut her needlessly, and contributed nothing toward her spiritual growth.
I can say with certainty is that she seems to be someone in serious need of our prayers (then again aren't we all in need of prayers) and from me, that she can count on.
Thank you for this reminder of our duty. It's easy to forget amidst the soap opera climate. Charity above all.
I also pray that 41 pages of this is enough.
Well said. A thumbs up for your post.
~Meg (forgot to check the non-anonymous function yet again).
-
Of course I can't read into her heart, but what I can say with certainty is that she seems to be someone in serious need of our prayers (then again aren't we all in need of prayers) and from me, that she can count on.
Thank you for your prayers.
-
I know that you and most others who have posted comments in this thread are well meaning (exceptions noted throughout; i.e., the OP) but I'm surprised that traditional Catholics would use the terms "groveling" and "pathetic" to describe JayneK's responses. Those are worldly/modernist characterizations of a Catholic attempt at humility.
You are right, we can't see into her heart. Because of that, an exhibition of humility (whether or not sincere, no matter, we do not know) should never, ever be met with mockery or criticism. Rather, better for her brothers to continue to reinforce her pledges. To submit oneself without argument to correction (and cruelty in some comments) is virtuous, not pathetic, especially to many of the anonymous hit and runners, who have only used the cloak of darkness to cut her needlessly, and contributed nothing toward her spiritual growth.
I can say with certainty is that she seems to be someone in serious need of our prayers (then again aren't we all in need of prayers) and from me, that she can count on.
Thank you for this reminder of our duty. It's easy to forget amidst the soap opera climate. Charity above all.
I also pray that 41 pages of this is enough.
:applause:
-
Jayne,
If you decided “a year ago” to post on Catholic discussion forums, plural, in a very different style, with different intentions, then why were you banned from CAF only eight days ago? I checked your very recent posting history on CAF. In addition to your legitimate participation in the linguistic aspects of Latin on the thread, “Advice for Learning Latin” (you are a linguist, after all), you nevertheless are all over the map with posts on matters you are hardly expert in: The OF, the EF, the GIRM, the SPPV, “A Church Divided,” canonical discussions, validity of various Masses, other aspects of sacramental theology – all less than a year ago, and some less than a month ago.
What I say is meant not as an attack, a “piling on,” or as scapegoating. I have followed your posts on many forums for many years -- forums I have also joined, in some cases. I offer my perspective as a life-long Catholic who was blessed to grow up with Tradition and was spared all the modern confusion and contradictory “opinions” which mistakenly substitute for truth in the contemporary Church.
I’m concerned that your approach to learning the Faith – when you have so very much to learn -- tends to be the same “quickie” approach that the standard N.O. parish uses. You seem to be in some kind of hurry to earn your “Catholic cred,” but I’ve never understood why you insist on rushing to establish some kind of expertise. It can’t be learned overnight., and learning Traditional Catholicism comes before learning about all the politics inside the Church, being able to differentiate one group from another, and being concerned with having to defend what your “political” identity is and is not.. All this Church politics stuff is for someone who already knows what he or she is talking about. It seems that your eagerness to post on many subjects above your knowledge is part of your wish to be “helpful,” but I think it backfires, because it puts you in a defensive position when your “knowledge” is thin.
I think that asking questions, and merely posting articles for discussion – as you did today on another forum – can be an excellent path as a learner. But none of us, myself included, should regard discussion forums as the central way to learn our Faith. Discussion forums consume a lot of time –much of it talking on a cursory level about much deeper realities. Juggling among forums and juggling personalities there while trying to convince all of the users that you understand refined theological differences is, I think, working against you. That’s because, in this back-and-forth habit, you then set yourself up to defend your own statements, some of which appear to contradict each other. It would make no more sense than if I were a recent convert to Judaism and went ѕуηαgσgυє-hopping among Chasidic, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist groups, yet claimed to be an insider about all the differences among them – not to mention simultaneously learning about both ancient and Rabbinic Judaism. Or if I decided to become a journalistic expert in the politics and religion of Muslim countries and proclaimed expertise long before I understood how the Sufis differ from other Muslims (and how Sufis may be outside Islam altogether), how the Shiites differ from the Suunis, and without a reliable understanding of traditional Islam before ISIS and similar groups emerged..
Flitting around discussion forums puts you at risk. It makes you more visible but not “more Catholic.” And I think that’s the central problem. I think that you believe you must be very active on discussion forums in order to become authentically Catholic. Maybe I’m wrong. It just appears that way to me.
In your defense, I don’t think that you are deliberately “duplicitous.” Rather, I think your “multiple identities” are the consequence of dipping your toes here and there while essentially skating on the surface and not diving in deeply. You don’t have to be “in the know” about all the politics in the Catholic Church, and it’s risky to pretend to be. Even long-standing or cradle trads, much more acquainted with the Faith than you, might know a lot about one Society but little about another. Those differences are not what’s important about Traditional Catholicism. And participation in discussion forums is not anything essential to Catholic belief or practice.
There are also many areas of knowledge in the Church. Some of these, each requiring significant study, are:
Systematics
Sacramental Theology
Scriptural Theology
Church history
Spirituality
Catholic philosophy, including Thomism. (Without understanding basic Thomism, it is virtually impossible to understand Traditional Catholicism.)
Each one of those takes years of study to qualify one as an expert who is in a position to hand out advice to others. Learning traditional Catholicism is not a desperate competition, but sometimes you appear to post as if it is. And posting on controversial topics such as politics and alliances and theological differences between the Conciliar and Traditional Church, about which you are still a novice, is putting the cart before the horse.
Finally, it’s really important to put everything in perspective relative to our salvation. Arguments on forums (as opposed to other aspects of forums) also tempt us to Pride, Vanity, Envy, Anger, and other vices. (I get caught in that trap myself!) You yourself can see how much time you’ve had to take extending arguments because of what you have posted. Please take my advice to heart, as it is meant out of charity and concern for your faith journey. 1 Corinthians 2:2
-
Jayne,
If you decided “a year ago” to post on Catholic discussion forums, plural, in a very different style, with different intentions, then why were you banned from CAF only eight days ago? I checked your very recent posting history on CAF. In addition to your legitimate participation in the linguistic aspects of Latin on the thread, “Advice for Learning Latin” (you are a linguist, after all), you nevertheless are all over the map with posts on matters you are hardly expert in: The OF, the EF, the GIRM, the SPPV, “A Church Divided,” canonical discussions, validity of various Masses, other aspects of sacramental theology – all less than a year ago, and some less than a month ago.
What I say is meant not as an attack, a “piling on,” or as scapegoating. I have followed your posts on many forums for many years -- forums I have also joined, in some cases. I offer my perspective as a life-long Catholic who was blessed to grow up with Tradition and was spared all the modern confusion and contradictory “opinions” which mistakenly substitute for truth in the contemporary Church.
I’m concerned that your approach to learning the Faith – when you have so very much to learn -- tends to be the same “quickie” approach that the standard N.O. parish uses. You seem to be in some kind of hurry to earn your “Catholic cred,” but I’ve never understood why you insist on rushing to establish some kind of expertise. It can’t be learned overnight., and learning Traditional Catholicism comes before learning about all the politics inside the Church, being able to differentiate one group from another, and being concerned with having to defend what your “political” identity is and is not.. All this Church politics stuff is for someone who already knows what he or she is talking about. It seems that your eagerness to post on many subjects above your knowledge is part of your wish to be “helpful,” but I think it backfires, because it puts you in a defensive position when your “knowledge” is thin.
I think that asking questions, and merely posting articles for discussion – as you did today on another forum – can be an excellent path as a learner. But none of us, myself included, should regard discussion forums as the central way to learn our Faith. Discussion forums consume a lot of time –much of it talking on a cursory level about much deeper realities. Juggling among forums and juggling personalities there while trying to convince all of the users that you understand refined theological differences is, I think, working against you. That’s because, in this back-and-forth habit, you then set yourself up to defend your own statements, some of which appear to contradict each other. It would make no more sense than if I were a recent convert to Judaism and went ѕуηαgσgυє-hopping among Chasidic, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist groups, yet claimed to be an insider about all the differences among them – not to mention simultaneously learning about both ancient and Rabbinic Judaism. Or if I decided to become a journalistic expert in the politics and religion of Muslim countries and proclaimed expertise long before I understood how the Sufis differ from other Muslims (and how Sufis may be outside Islam altogether), how the Shiites differ from the Suunis, and without a reliable understanding of traditional Islam before ISIS and similar groups emerged..
Flitting around discussion forums puts you at risk. It makes you more visible but not “more Catholic.” And I think that’s the central problem. I think that you believe you must be very active on discussion forums in order to become authentically Catholic. Maybe I’m wrong. It just appears that way to me.
In your defense, I don’t think that you are deliberately “duplicitous.” Rather, I think your “multiple identities” are the consequence of dipping your toes here and there while essentially skating on the surface and not diving in deeply. You don’t have to be “in the know” about all the politics in the Catholic Church, and it’s risky to pretend to be. Even long-standing or cradle trads, much more acquainted with the Faith than you, might know a lot about one Society but little about another. Those differences are not what’s important about Traditional Catholicism. And participation in discussion forums is not anything essential to Catholic belief or practice.
There are also many areas of knowledge in the Church. Some of these, each requiring significant study, are:
Systematics
Sacramental Theology
Scriptural Theology
Church history
Spirituality
Catholic philosophy, including Thomism. (Without understanding basic Thomism, it is virtually impossible to understand Traditional Catholicism.)
Each one of those takes years of study to qualify one as an expert who is in a position to hand out advice to others. Learning traditional Catholicism is not a desperate competition, but sometimes you appear to post as if it is. And posting on controversial topics such as politics and alliances and theological differences between the Conciliar and Traditional Church, about which you are still a novice, is putting the cart before the horse.
Finally, it’s really important to put everything in perspective relative to our salvation. Arguments on forums (as opposed to other aspects of forums) also tempt us to Pride, Vanity, Envy, Anger, and other vices. (I get caught in that trap myself!) You yourself can see how much time you’ve had to take extending arguments because of what you have posted. Please take my advice to heart, as it is meant out of charity and concern for your faith journey. 1 Corinthians 2:2
Jayne, I have watched these people slowly "roast you" The thread started out as a Laramie "roast"
Sorry you have had that "misfortune" According to many, you sound to me like Cantrella's twin sister! :facepalm: :roll-laugh1:
-
Jayne, I have watched these people slowly "roast you" The thread started out as a Laramie "roast"
Sorry you have had that "misfortune" According to many, you sound to me like Cantrella's twin sister! :facepalm: :roll-laugh1:
I know that Canterella has been involved in some controversy here, but I have not followed those discussions so I don't really know about that aspect of her. I have found her quotes from spiritual writers very helpful.
Anyhow, I do not consider this thread a misfortune. I learned some important things from it and appreciated an opportunity to express remorse for my past.
-
Jayne, I have watched these people slowly "roast you" The thread started out as a Laramie "roast"
Sorry you have had that "misfortune" According to many, you sound to me like Cantrella's twin sister! :facepalm: :roll-laugh1:
What kind of an illiterate non-comprehending incoherent jackass are you? I can't even tell whether you're supportive or non-supportive of Jayne. And where in the hell did you get that this thread started out as a Laramie "roast?" Did you read the title and then skip ahead 39 pages and assume the middle?? And then randomly selected the first two emoticons that you saw?
-
You are right.....it was a Jane "roast", not a Laramie " roast". Misread.
I am feeling sorry for Jane in this. No matter how she apologizes, some of you continue to down her.
Im so glad this "jackass ( me) has an opportunity to make a comment with protection of this anonymous feature! I will never make any comments in the future , other than anonymous ones. I don't know why I bother anyway.
Jane, some of the people here accuse you of being a theologian of sorts. This is what our resident theologian Cantrella is! You shouldn't ever try to upstage her, Jane! :laugh1:
Prayers for you! Thanks for showing us humility...........hope its real!
-
You are right.....it was a Jane "roast", not a Laramie " roast". Misread.
I am feeling sorry for Jane in this. No matter how she apologizes, some of you continue to down her.
Im so glad this "jackass ( me) has an opportunity to make a comment with protection of this anonymous feature! I will never make any comments in the future , other than anonymous ones. I don't know why I bother anyway.
Jane, some of the people here accuse you of being a theologian of sorts. This is what our resident theologian Cantrella is! You shouldn't ever try to upstage her, Jane! :laugh1:
Prayers for you! Thanks for showing us humility...........hope its real!
I was away from the forum for awhile until recently. But I've never seen Cantrella say anything clearly deviating from tradition. She has stronger views against sedevacantism than what I think is prudent, and she, too, seems to black out and go blind at the verse against women teaching and preaching. But I haven't seen her go squarely against tradition.
-
But I haven't seen her go squarely against tradition.
That does not matter.
Actions are just as important as words. Her actions clearly show she does not heed any warnings concerning women preaching and teaching.
“Even if a woman is educated and saintly, she still should not presume to instruct men in an assembly."
Decretum Gratiani Distinction 23, Chapter 29
1st Timothy Chapter 12 verses 12-14
-
Cantrella is a Feenyite. That certainly goes against tradition.
-
Enough! Lets not start "roasting" Cantrella now!
-
This thread was started to accuse me of dishonesty because I post differently on different forums. I am guilty. But every person who posts differently under his name from when he posts anonymously is guilty of the same sort of dishonesty. To do it in this thread is to also be guilty of hypocrisy.
I was fine with taking everything thrown at me in this thread because I knew that I deserved it. I am not fine with it becoming a general character assassination thread used by people who do not have the courage and decency to offer criticisms under their own names.
I don't know if anyone cares what I think, but I needed to say that.
-
Cantrella is a Feenyite. That certainly goes against tradition.
This must be the most idiotic, dimwit statement from this whole thread by far, ignoramus.
-
This thread was started to accuse me of dishonesty because I post differently on different forums. I am guilty. But every person who posts differently under his name from when he posts anonymously is guilty of the same sort of dishonesty. To do it in this thread is to also be guilty of hypocrisy.
I was fine with taking everything thrown at me in this thread because I knew that I deserved it. I am not fine with it becoming a general character assassination thread used by people who do not have the courage and decency to offer criticisms under their own names.
I don't know if anyone cares what I think, but I needed to say that.
I think, as a general policy, it encourages mutual honesty, yes, when one's true screen names are used. Genuine dialogue -- which is what the form of the question in the OP suggested -- is best accomplished, I think, with mutual disclosure.
In some instances, I support posting anonymously, but probably not in the kind of direct question which this thread asked. I support posting anonymously when people have reason to fear retaliation. Thus, there have been a very few occasions -- not on trad discussion forums but in Conciliar Church media when I have done so. I have done so, for example, on Nat'l "Catholic" Reporter, on Commonweal, and especially in online diocesan newspapers. There was one story about a year ago about a transferred sodomite priest and his similarly transferred pastor. Because the story was local, and because from time to time I have been/had been rather visible in that particular parish, I really didn't want to take heat for my orthodox position. I have a vested interest in staying peripherally involved there so that I can influence people away from heterodoxy, even if in only a minor way or within a small circle.
No one destroys perceived enemies as swiftly and as mercilessly as liberals do.
-
This thread was started to accuse me of dishonesty because I post differently on different forums. I am guilty. But every person who posts differently under his name from when he posts anonymously is guilty of the same sort of dishonesty. To do it in this thread is to also be guilty of hypocrisy.
I was fine with taking everything thrown at me in this thread because I knew that I deserved it. I am not fine with it becoming a general character assassination thread used by people who do not have the courage and decency to offer criticisms under their own names.
I don't know if anyone cares what I think, but I needed to say that.
Sadly, correct assessments Jaynek.
St. Thomas distinguishes different forms of sins / injustice in speech, two of which are traps we all fall into here:
Reviling – dishonoring a person, usually to their face, and often in the hearing of others. It is done openly, audibly and is usually rooted in anger and personal disrespect. It may include name-calling, caricature, profanity and even cursing (which will also be treated later). For the most part, we do not consider reviling to be a form of gossip per se, (since gossip is usually conducted apart from the offended person and reviling to their face). But reviling is a sin of speech that ought to be mentioned here, since it is annexed to the general dishonor and harming of the reputation of others that is at the heart of gossip. Reviling as such is intended to cause personal embarrassment or dishonor.
Derision – is making fun of a person, perhaps of their mannerisms, perhaps of a physical trait, or personal quality. While some of this can be light-hearted, it often strays into hurtful and humiliating actions or words that diminish someone else’s standing or honor within the community.
But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Matthew 12: 36, 37
-
Interesting...
St. Thomas of Aquin also had this to say as well:
"The reason for this is that it is shameful for a women to speak in Church and not only unbecoming; for in women the natural feeling of shame is commended. If therefore they ask and dispute in public, it would be a sign of shamelessness, and this is shameful to them. Hence it also follows that in law the office of advocate is forbidden to women."
-
Also:
"He assigns the reason for this, saying: for they are not permitted to speak, namely, by the authority of the Church, but their function is to be subject to men. Hence, since teaching implies prelacy and presiding, it is not suited to those who are subjects. The reason they are subject and not in the forefront is that they are deficient in reasoning, which is especially necessary for those who preside. Therefore, the Philosopher says in his Politics that corruption of rule occurs, when the rule comes to women."
-
Did he say anything about shameless anonymity?
-
Also:
"He assigns the reason for this, saying: for they are not permitted to speak, namely, by the authority of the Church, but their function is to be subject to men. Hence, since teaching implies prelacy and presiding, it is not suited to those who are subjects. The reason they are subject and not in the forefront is that they are deficient in reasoning, which is especially necessary for those who preside. Therefore, the Philosopher says in his Politics that corruption of rule occurs, when the rule comes to women."
I completely agree that women should not teach men. I was recently asked to lead an adult Catechism class for our diocesan TLM community and I said no because I would have been teaching men. It was clear to me that this principle applied in that situation.
I don't understand how this principle applies in forum discussions. How do I tell the difference between giving my opinion or quoting a Church teaching (those would both be okay, right?) and teaching?
-
In some instances, I support posting anonymously, but probably not in the kind of direct question which this thread asked. I support posting anonymously when people have reason to fear retaliation. Thus, there have been a very few occasions -- not on trad discussion forums but in Conciliar Church media when I have done so. I have done so, for example, on Nat'l "Catholic" Reporter, on Commonweal, and especially in online diocesan newspapers. There was one story about a year ago about a transferred sodomite priest and his similarly transferred pastor. Because the story was local, and because from time to time I have been/had been rather visible in that particular parish, I really didn't want to take heat for my orthodox position. I have a vested interest in staying peripherally involved there so that I can influence people away from heterodoxy, even if in only a minor way or within a small circle.
No one destroys perceived enemies as swiftly and as mercilessly as liberals do.
Sure. There are sometimes good reasons to post anonymously. That is why this sub-forum exists.
-
No one destroys perceived enemies as swiftly and as mercilessly as liberals do.
That's got nothing to do with liberalism vs. conservatism. It's a human characteristic that is particularly prevalent in group-think.
This particular thread is proof enough of that.
-
No one destroys perceived enemies as swiftly and as mercilessly as liberals do.
That's got nothing to do with liberalism vs. conservatism. It's a human characteristic that is particularly prevalent in group-think.
This particular thread is proof enough of that.
The thing about liberals is that they do it while congratulating themselves on how tolerant they are.
-
Interesting...
St. Thomas of Aquin also had this to say as well:
"The reason for this is that it is shameful for a women to speak in Church and not only unbecoming; for in women the natural feeling of shame is commended. If therefore they ask and dispute in public, it would be a sign of shamelessness, and this is shameful to them. Hence it also follows that in law the office of advocate is forbidden to women."
Important counsel, but has nothing to do with the overall tone of the anonymous comments on this thread which go to the great Saint's instruction on the sin of speech.
Nadir said:
Did he say anything about shameless anonymity?
Priceless. Quote of the Thread award.
-
Jane, some of the people here accuse you of being a theologian of sorts...
Yes--of sorts...
-
No one destroys perceived enemies as swiftly and as mercilessly as liberals do.
That's got nothing to do with liberalism vs. conservatism. It's a human characteristic that is particularly prevalent in group-think.
This particular thread is proof enough of that.
The thing about liberals is that they do it while congratulating themselves on how tolerant they are.
Precisely, Jayne. The Left, both in secular and "religious" spheres, has a zero tolerance policy for anyone who opposes their stock positions. Gotta love the hypocrisy, not to mention the aggression that poses as tolerance.
-
This doesn't make sense to me. How will you help modernists by posting modernist and crypto-modernist ideas over there?
I retract and apologize. I have no reason to think she posted anything like that, and so I consider it untrue.
-
I retract and apologize. I have no reason to think she posted anything like that, and so I consider it untrue.
I wrote this
-Sbyvl
-
I hope you eventually decide to leave CAF, or, at the very least, not misrepresent the Faith in order to appease the modernists (or whatever).
If you cannot prove one way or the other that Sedevacantists are schismatic, it is fundamentally against Catholic principles to describe them as such, for until and unless you can prove this very serious accusation, what you are doing borders very closely on slande.
I retract and apologize for the untrue comment that she was misrepresenting the Faith to appease people. I also retract and apologize for any untrue intimations that she was deliberately slandering anyone.
-
Jayne,
You voiced support for a number of serious errors on CAF, and the only response thus far seems to essentially be that you were trying to fit in at CAF,
I retract and apologize for the untrue claim that she as writing error for the prior of fitting in
-
I thought you did have a spiritual director., for I distinctly recall you telling me that your spiritual director (or was it your confessor) instructed you to limit your time on Internet fora no more than an hour per day.
I retract and apologize for any untrue intimation that she lied about this
-
You know, Sbyvl, you seem to be going on a bit of a scroop-binge here. :laugh1: If something you said has long since been forgotten because you wrote it seven years ago, then I'm not sure it's better to dredge it up again in order to retract it. If anything, if you don't want people to see statements you wish you had never said, it would tend more to have that effect if you leave these old threads buried and forgotten. :cowboy:
-
Sure. There are sometimes good reasons to post anonymously. That is why this sub-forum exists.
Yes there are sometimes to good reasons to port anonymously, but a personal attack on one person is not such a reason. Whatever Jayne may have said is not as bad as what the cowardly anonymous person did.
-
That was me
-
You know, Sbyvl, you seem to be going on a bit of a scroop-binge here. :laugh1: If something you said has long since been forgotten because you wrote it seven years ago, then I'm not sure it's better to dredge it up again in order to retract it. If anything, if you don't want people to see statements you wish you had never said, it would tend more to have that effect if you leave these old threads buried and forgotten. :cowboy:
I think what might be going on since they've been doing this on multiple threads is taking to heart Church Teaching on making restitution of damaging someone's name or making false allegations, etc. If I'm not mistaken you're actually supposed to do this if you're able to in order to be truly forgiven.
-
I couldn't see any of the pictures, but let's have no deceit in the cauliflower at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWJAnG8pLWg
-
that clip was too long. let's just stick to the cauliflower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmB7J-TxQwc