Author Topic: Errors or denials of Catholic Faith by Fisheaters Web site (Read 2388 times)

veribus · « **on:** March 20, 2007, 11:34:47 AM »

On another thread, someone said, "Fisheaters, as far as I can see, denies no Catholic beliefs or practices."

To which gilbertgea answered, "That is exactly the problem: people just dont see it."

Very dangerous!

So I wonder if we might be able to list the aspects of the Faith that are implicity or explicity denied by the Fisheaters site, so that good Catholics can understand what is so dangerous about it, and why they should avoid it.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #1 on:** March 20, 2007, 11:40:21 AM »

I'm quite interested in this, if only to see more slander against Vox IMHO.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #2 on:** March 20, 2007, 12:43:14 PM »

Fisheaters does not deny Catholic beliefs and practices, but there are other issues as well concerning how to dispose ourselves properly to those beliefs and practices.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** March 20, 2007, 12:47:50 PM »

The Index is still in full force!

Regarding The Poem of the Man-God:

But Cardinal Ratzinger, former and current Apostolic Nuncio Archbishops Pio Laghi and Agostino Cacciavillan, and a host of other ecclesiastics take a contrary stand. In their view, the book is condemned and dangerous.
Cardinal Ratzinger, in a letter dated Jan. 31st, 1985, written in response to the request of Genoa's Giuseppe Cardinal Siri on the book's status, recalled L'Osservatore Romano's judgment that it was "a badly fictionalized life of Jesus."
The Cardinal-Prefect added: "After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing and distribution of the work was permitted, people were reminded again in L'Osservatore Romano (June 15th, 1966) that, as was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (1966), the Index retains its moral force despite its dissolution. A decision against distributing and recommending a work, which had not been condemned lightly, may be reversed, but only after profound changes that neutralize the harm which such a publication could bring forth among the ordinary faithful."

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** March 20, 2007, 12:48:30 PM »

So wouldn't virtually all TV shows and movies be on the Index, if it were still around?

Yet many Catholics today think they are free to decide if they will watch them or not.

And if some people say "Well, that only applies to books that were put on the Index before. Most movies were written AFTER the Index, so they were not condemned."

To which I would reply that there has never been a better example of where the "letter of the law killeth". In other words, talk about Pharisaism! A modern-day Pharisee would say, "This obviously anti-Catholic movie is ok for a Catholic to watch -- no sin in committed -- because it was not prohibited by the Index" ...even though a child could tell you that it WOULD HAVE BEEN if the Church were still maintaining the Index.

Matthew

CampeadorShin · « **Reply #5 on:** March 20, 2007, 02:55:50 PM »

I don't remember anyone ever saying that the Fish Eaters site promotes something not in accordance to the Catholic Faith.

The only thing I could think of would possibly be LumenGentleman's defense of "speakin' in tounges" or his rumored views on Scripture being superior to Tradition. I cannot remember who told me something about "prima scriptura".

But again, thats a rumor.

I think my only problem with them is that I was censored and not told why.

The moral issues concerning their forums is another matter, a matter I don't feel I know enough about to comment on.

However, others feel that certain members or MODs are leaning slightly towards the feminαzι side. Others tell me they allow very worldly content to be posted, and some tell me that innappropriate language goes uncensored at times.

Again, this is from what others tell me, as I myself have not been over to their forums since I deleted my account.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #6 on:** March 20, 2007, 03:12:51 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

...there are other issues as well concerning how to dispose ourselves properly to those beliefs and practices.

Well said, Kepha.

I read this a few weeks ago and thought it described well the direction toward which a beginner in the spiritual life should aim.

Quote from: The Spiritual Life (TAN Books)

Two classes of beginners. Some show greater generosity, others less. Hence the two classes into which they are divided by St. Teresa.

a) In the first mansion or the Castle of the Soul, she gives a description of those souls that have good desires, are faithful to recite some prayers, but who are taken up with the world and have their minds filled with a thousand and one things which absorb their thought. The while they retain these many attachments, they strive from time to time to free themselves from them. Through such efforts they gain an entrance into the first and lower halls of the Castle: with them, however, enter a multitude of mischievous animals (their own passions) which hinder them from gazing at the beauty of the castle and abiding peacefully therein. To have entered this mansion, although it is the lowest, is already a singular good-fortune; nevertheless the machinations and subterfuges employed by the devil in order to prevent such souls from advancing are ruthless. The world, likewise, wherein they are yet immersed, allures them with its pleasures and honors; hence, they are easily conquered, even though they want to avoid sin and do perform good works. In other words, these souls strive to harmonize piety and worldliness. Their faith is not sufficiently enlightened, their will is not strong enough, not generous enough to determine them to renounce not merely sin, but sundry dangerous occasions; they have little realized the need of frequent prayer, of rigorous penance, or mortification; still, they want not only to work out their salvation, but also to grow in the love of God by making some sacrifices.

b) The other class of beginners is described by the Saint in her second mansion. They are souls already initiated in the practice of mental prayer, who understand the necessity of sacrifice as a means of perfection, but who through lack of courage retreat at time to the first mansion, exposing themselves once more to the occasions of sin. They love as yet the pleasures of the world and its allurements, and occasionally fall into some grave fault; but hearkening to God's call to penance, presently rise again. In spite of the appeals made to them by the world and the devil, they meditate on the emptiness of the world's false goods and on death that shall soon take these away. They grow apace in the love of Him from Whom they receive so many proofs of love; they realize that apart from Him they shall find neither peace nor safety, and wish to avoid the wanderings of the Prodigal. This, then, is a state of struggle in which such souls have much to suffer from the manifold temptations that assail them, but wherein also God deigns to comfort and fortify them. By acting in conformity with God's holy will, which is the great means of perfection, they will finally emerge from the mansions wherein creep such venomous creatures, and they will pass to the other mansions beyond the reach of their poisonous sting.

Unfortunately, "a" is accepted and often encouraged among lay Catholics more often than "b".

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #7 on:** March 27, 2007, 09:25:33 PM »

I wouldn't say that Fisheaters denies dogmas, but I find the conversation there immature. Vox doesn't deny one article of the faith, but I do believe she allows and on a very rare occasion promotes talk on sɛҳuąƖity way too openly. Her view is that if we don't talk about it someone will, my approach is that if you train the ear to abhor any conversation it's safer and more traditional in the mind of Catholic moralists.

Now I have been reproached by some of the posters. Jacob Michael believes in Prima Scriptura, which is asinine, and that the Nestorian liturgy approved by the Vatican a few years ago is just fine and peachy. KJVail and I have disagreed strongly on sɛҳuąƖ ethics. He points to JPII calling previous Catholic teaching Manicheanism, while I point out the traditional beliefs on sɛҳuąƖity (who could ever imagine a traditional Catholic promoting West's version of ToB is beyond me).

Overall, I believe they are good people in a lost world of leadership awry and all things considering Vox is a good woman trying to what she believes is her best. I believe her website is a good and fruitful thing. One of my reasons for never going back was I was sick of arguing with immature posters there, and my final straw was the insulting of a very good friend of mine who promoted traditional morality in dress and modesty who was booted off by Vox.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #8 on:** March 27, 2007, 10:55:22 PM »

You know, Michael, that Prima Scriptura thing had also come to mind for me today. lol

veribus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 28, 2007, 03:50:40 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

I'm quite interested in this, if only to see more slander against Vox IMHO.

I have no interest in slandering anyone.

I was thrown off of Fisheaters for trying to discuss Catholic dogma.

The fact remains that many Catholics are banned from the site, discussion of certain aspects of the Faith are forbidden (not simply 'sedevacantism', but if that were the only thing it would still be significant and worth mentioning).

I don't know if there are enough people reading this familiar with the board, but I thought it would be a good discussion and mental exercise to describe exactly what that site denies. In the "bad catholics on fisheaters" thread, someone said that Fisheaters denies nothing Catholic. To that, gilbertgea answered, "That is exactly the problem: people just dont see it."
Well, if so, let's list it!

For example, mostholyfamilymonastery.com (the Most Holy Family Monastery) seems to be 99.99% Catholic, as far as I can tell. They deny one thing: Baptism of Blood / Baptism of Desire. In other words so many of the martyrs, in the Martyrology of the Church (Saints in Heaven) are actually not, according to their view. That's the only thing I've found in their writings that contradicts the Faith ... but the Faith cannot be had in parts, it must be 100% or nothing. You can't be "part" or "mostly" Catholic.

Vandaler · « **Reply #10 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:13:13 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

I'm quite interested in this, if only to see more slander against Vox IMHO.

What an odd comment especially since you post in both places.

I personnally won't ever post anything from FE here and inversely post about CathInfo there.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #11 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:26:16 PM »

Quote from: Vandaler

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
I'm quite interested in this, if only to see more slander against Vox IMHO.

What an odd comment especially since you post in both places.

I personnally won't ever post anything from FE here and inversely post about CathInfo there.

I show on both forums that I disagree with certain people. However, that doesn't mean I attack either forum. I might show sometimes on FE here what I think of some threads there, but nothing about attacking FE.

clare · « **Reply #12 on:** March 30, 2007, 10:31:38 AM »

FishEaters itself doesn't contain errors that I'm aware of.

The discussion forum, being a place where people discuss, may well contain the odd error!

Indeed, this forum may well contain errors (in fact, I corrected one a few weeks back: the error being that it's right to baptise infants, who aren't in danger of death, against the wishes of both parents).

So, a discussion forum is bound to have people posting erroneous ideas.

It's not truth that FE resists, it's the perceived arrogance of those who elevate their own take on Church teaching to de fide dogma, and insist on it as necessary, who fall foul of the system there. It's their attitude that doesn't go down well!

Clare.

Clodovicus · « **Reply #13 on:** May 01, 2007, 03:28:48 PM »

Well it's that they take their own view on the teaching of the Church and force it on everyone else as though it were the actual dogma of the Church. And when you provide the actual interpretations..., Well, I'll say that they simply degrade certain dogmas to make way for their own opinions, and those who contradict them are objectively wrong in their opinion. They are sort of "cultish" in my mind; and the sad thing is that they are one of the biggest websites in the Traditional Catholic presence on the internet.

Regarding MHFM, I believe that what it posted there is certainly credible and worthy of consideration, but I think it is all to be viewed in the light of Tradition and the magisterium.