[Dellery]

I just read that a stalwart Trad, College Catholic, was banned. He has started a new forum in response. Some of the fembots over at FE are none too happy that the URL was promoted.

I was on that forum for a little while, it's basically a FishEaters II.

They allow a Protestant to post a bunch of rubbish over there (in case you're wondering, yes, I am refering to VetusOrdo, the ex-Trad who used to post on FE). He was on some thread saying the woman can and should work outside the home if she wants and was suggesting the Church had "failed". I fired back, and then he hypocritically accused me of "heresy" (a Protestant accusing a Traditional Catholic of heresy, LOL). So as I defended myself and Church teaching, one of the four moderators there chimed in and told both of us to stop. I was angry that I was asked to "stop" defending Church teaching against this Protestant. I stood up to the mod and he responded with some smart-aleck remark.

Then Jaynek starts attacking me by criticizing me for "not showing respect for the moderators". Following the fight on that thread, College Catholic opened a subforum for complaining about the forum, and Jaynek started two threads there. In the first thread, she complained about people who "don't show respect for the forum's moderators" (obviously refering to me and a few others) and then started another thread complaining about the "personal attack" some users were launching at Vetus (again refering to me and a few others).

It gets worse. On the thread where I argued with Vetus, they were discussing whether or not the woman should get a degree, and they were nearly all for it. The feminism on that place is astonishing, no different from FE, really.

Not to mention that Erin is Nice is over there saying the man shouldn't be the head of the household.

Even FE didn't allow Vetus to spew heresy, but SD does. That place is hardly any better than FE, the only difference is Trads are not banned for no reason. Please stay away from that site.

Thanks for this information ServusSpiritusSancti, it's a necessity for us to expose erroneous and dangerous forums, that in a lot of people's eyes, convey the Catholic faith. For one to have a good forum, one has to mercilessly silence lies and error, except for the sake of their refutation, and this should only be done in moderation. This is where the genius of Mathew's management preserves this forum from the same treacherous flow of liars that plague the others.
A Protestant allowed to spread their Gospel perverting filth on a Catholic forum!?
This just incenses me.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

JayneK is a sanctimonious pain in the behind. Is there a word that exists in the English lanugage that is of a higher degree to describe her, eh, sanctimony?
What I have noticed at FE and not at SD is the retention of some posters who are wickedly vile in there responses to those who call them out for being over zealous. I have alos seen blasphemy tolerated. Wicked place. Please pray for me bretheren, that I never go there again.

But I do enjoy SD. GMUA and a fews others make good posts with SSPX and types of news.

I think Jaynek's problem is that she defends a moderator's actions even when they promote scandal. I'm all for respecting a moderator, but when they start allowing a Protestant to get away with attacking the Traditional Catholic Faith (and Vetus has done it over there on numerous occasions), I won't stand for it.

She was not even the only one on there defending Vetus. It's sick.

SD does have some good posters, though, I agree with you on that. It's just a shame they're overshadowed by some neo-cons, feminists, and a Protestant who spews heresy.

[Roland Deschain]

I just read that a stalwart Trad, College Catholic, was banned. He has started a new forum in response. Some of the fembots over at FE are none too happy that the URL was promoted.

I was on that forum for a little while, it's basically a FishEaters II.

They allow a Protestant to post a bunch of rubbish over there (in case you're wondering, yes, I am refering to VetusOrdo, the ex-Trad who used to post on FE). He was on some thread saying the woman can and should work outside the home if she wants and was suggesting the Church had "failed". I fired back, and then he hypocritically accused me of "heresy" (a Protestant accusing a Traditional Catholic of heresy, LOL). So as I defended myself and Church teaching, one of the four moderators there chimed in and told both of us to stop. I was angry that I was asked to "stop" defending Church teaching against this Protestant. I stood up to the mod and he responded with some smart-aleck remark.

Then Jaynek starts attacking me by criticizing me for "not showing respect for the moderators". Following the fight on that thread, College Catholic opened a subforum for complaining about the forum, and Jaynek started two threads there. In the first thread, she complained about people who "don't show respect for the forum's moderators" (obviously refering to me and a few others) and then started another thread complaining about the "personal attack" some users were launching at Vetus (again refering to me and a few others).

It gets worse. On the thread where I argued with Vetus, they were discussing whether or not the woman should get a degree, and they were nearly all for it. The feminism on that place is astonishing, no different from FE, really.

Not to mention that Erin is Nice is over there saying the man shouldn't be the head of the household.

Even FE didn't allow Vetus to spew heresy, but SD does. That place is hardly any better than FE, the only difference is Trads are not banned for no reason. Please stay away from that site.

I was thinking the same thing: Fisheaters 2.0

There is a reason I don't post Fisheaters. It's too bad the feminists and neo-trads from FE seem to be taking over SD.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

When the first Traditional alternative to FE - Council of Trent forums - was started, there were a lot of feminists there as well. The two mods there, however, were pretty Traditional.

I think that posting on FE for a long time can be dangerous to one's mindset, no doubt. So when you have a lot of people from FE join a forum, that forum will likely start looking a little like FE if they aren't soon purged.

[tmw89]

Hello everybody.

As you might imagine, I've been busy over at Suscipe Domine (apparently aka Fish Eaters II).  Thought I might post a thought or two here, seeing as how there are a few misconceptions that could stand to be cleared up.

First, I should make it clear for those who don't know that I am a moderator on SD.  The forum was planned some months before CollegeCatholic and myself were banned from FE.  Setting out, we and several other Catholics wanted to make a place on the Internet like FE, only for Trads.  I think that thus far, the results haven't been too shabby.

Second, about the parts that have been shabby.  The apostate Vetus Ordo is free to post at SD.  At least up through now, and until he very clearly violates the rules it looks like he might stay there.  If it were up to me as admin, it would be different.  But the admin of the site doesn't think Vetus's apostate status is enough to warrant a ban.  JayneK is about as crypto as it gets, and she's posting there.  I think a lot of you know I'm no fan of hers, either.  There's another executive decision that I don't agree with...

...but I don't think that from those two problems we arrive at Fish Eaters II.  If you take a look around the place, you'll see the more active posters are by and large Trads such as yourselves.  What's more, unlike FE (which is beyond the storied point of no return), SD is at such a point where problem posters like Vetus and Jayne can be drowned out if there are enough other posters who call them on their horse manure - but as long as guys like you throw your hands up and leave, it won't happen.  I know I would appreciate back up from non-mods, to show I'm not just on some modly power-trip!

And knowing the forum leadership, I can assure you there's nary a modernist among the five of us.  How many other Trad forums can boast sedevacantist moderators getting along with sedeplenist moderators?  It's not because we've compromised with modernists - the forum officially stands against them.  In fact we're officially pro-SSPX, and the Admin has opened an ongoing archive of +Williamson's Eleison Comments.

Please, let me reiterate and expand a little:  I've talked with the forum owner/admin, Kaesekopf/CollegeCatholic, and we discussed how an authentically Catholic forum should operate. Initially, in the very beginning of SD, he was hesitant to stifle debate and thought it could be almost a "free for all" in terms of public discussion. However, he is coming around to the proper mindset of "error has no rights," and he is working on how to appropriately incorporate that into the forum. Remember, this is our first time running a forum, and it's hard to get it "right" on the first go. To leave during a few birthing pains, however... I do hope those of you who haven't posted much recently come back, and maybe even more of you.

Sorry for being a little long-winded.  Just thought it a good idea to keep you guys apprised of what's what over at SD.




EDITED TO ADD:  Matthew, apologies if this is out of line, please delete if you see fit.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

Thank you for the comment, tmw. I appreciate your kindness and honesty.

The problem is, I do not think an apostate being allowed on a Traditional Catholic forum can be "drowned out", not when he's allowed to criticize Traditional Catholicism over and over again. I'm glad you're against him being allowed over there, but the admin obviously does not mind it, and I find it outrageous. And for a moderator (who, I should add, I had actually THOUGHT was a friend of mine) to tell me to stop defending Catholicism against a heretic who's goal is to lead people away from the Faith, it is sickening, purely sickening.

Posters who present a danger to souls by attempting to lead others away from the Catholic Faith should be banned, the administrator should not leave it to members to simply "drown them out" or ignore them. And besides that, it seemed that more people over there supported Vetus than those who didn't. Jaynek in particular blasted me for firing back at Bonaventure.

Furthermore, I do not agree with SD's policy on women obtaining degrees, nor do I agree with the admin's tolerance of feminstic ideas being promoted.

I will admit that SD is overall better than FishEaters, I am not saying it is exactly the same. It is, however, worse in a way, because VoxClamantis did not allow Vetus to spew his heresy. She banned him, but on SD he can do anything he wants, and anyone who stands up to him is berated by either one of the mods or some liberal member. And the site's views on feminism are really no different than FE.

I understand that running a forum is not easy, I've been there before. But no matter how long one has been a mod, there is simply no excuse in allowing a Protestant to accuse another Trad of "heresy" and to suggest that the Church has "failed".

Yet, when I said that what Vetus was asserting was heresy, another member asked me to "prove" my claim. Unbelievable! Vetus is not required to prove his claim that I am guilty of heresy, but I must prove my claim that he, a Protestant, is in heresy?

It's not just Vetus and Jaynek that are the problem. Numerous members there hold liberal beliefs such as that. I must say that the site's administrator is acting rather lax to allow people like that on his forum, and a few of the moderators there (I'm not refering to tmw, whom I happen to consider very Traditional), hold some views that are questionable at best, and liberal/modernist at worse, to put it charitably.

So I appreciate tmw taking the time to share his thoughts and to urge us not to give up on SD. I still read the forum a good bit, but I'm afraid posting there is a waste of time. There's no reason to have patience with a forum that needs to make some significant changes that aren't likely to occur. If I am to return to posting there, I think I am owed an apology from a few people, and I think that some cleaning up would be in order as well. In the meantime, that forum is promoting abomination by allowing a heretic to do as he pleases, and I cannot and will not approve of it.

God Bless.

[tmw89]

SSS, I think both of us know the goings-on in the world of Trad-dom can make almost anybody into a pessimist - but tonight is something of an exception to the rule, as your concerns and the concerns of other members have not fallen on deaf and ineffectual ears.

Speaking of rules, the Rules of Suscipe Domine have been officially amended:

"Non-Catholics are permitted to register, read, and post this forum.  However, per rule #1 (as defined below), 'error has no rights.'  As such, you are warned to not spread your errors."

"[Rule]1) Error has no rights."

From http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=42.msg85#msg85

This effectively neuters Vetus's heresy:  if you or anybody else sees him or another member spew such filth as heresy, report the post with a reference to Rule #1.  If that isn't heresy-proofing the forum from this point forward... I don't know what can do it.

And one more thing (as a certain trench-coated detective used to say):  while you say you do not agree with SD's policy on women getting college degrees... the forum simply does not have a policy on the matter (although there was a thread on the topic).  The only policies of the forum are found in the link I inserted above.  The posts on SD are strictly speaking, much like the posts here on CI, only the opinions of the individual members.

Hopefully you guys can see that we at SD take the Faith seriously, and if you do want to give us another try (or a first), you're quite welcome to post on our Catholic forum.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

I don't deny that SD's moderating team takes the Faith seriously, and I am glad that further heresies uttered by Vetus will not be possible through the new rule that was implemented.

However, it doesn't change the fact that Vetus was still allowed to get away with something he should not. The solution should go much further than just "We'll just add this rule, and if he does it again, we'll ban him". Reparation also needs to be made. I was done wrong, and more importantly, Catholicism was mocked and criticized by a Protestant, and his insulting posts are still on there. If true reparation is to be made, those posts in question should be removed, and I should be given an apology by the moderator who acted wrongly. Standing up to a Protestant and then receiving an admonishment from a moderator and an even harsher one from Jaynek was disgraceful, it was quite possibly the worst thing I've experiened on a Trad forum.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad SD has added a rule that should prevent Vetus or any other heretic from speaking ill of Catholicism in the future. But a Protestant had the nerve to accuse me of heresy and to say my mindset "wasn't Catholic", and when I merely defended myself and also defended Catholicism, a moderator asked me to stop. SD has taken the first step in the right direction, but they have still yet to make the reparation they need to.

That's all I'll say about it for now. Thank you again, tmw, for taking the time to explain things.

[parentsfortruth]

More reasons why the Fisheaters forum is a danger to the Faith:

She's clearly "reconciled" Catholicism with the world, unfortunately, she prolifically enforces and spreads her disorientation with militant zeal.

That is the way it works when a forum wants it both ways, ie trad and socially acceptable. She wants FE to be a face book and a trad(?) forum - so she ends up with a forum over run by NOers who, just like the conciliar church, falsely label themselves as Traditional Catholics - not all of the posters there of course, but most of them.

You are right too in saying it is a danger to the faith over there - especially for many sincere and those young people who are new to this conciliar mess.

This is why this supposed deal with the SSPX is so dangerous. It's not even about the Faith at all. It's about "being accepted" by the people that are clearly opposed to absolute truth!

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

That is the way it works when a forum wants it both ways, ie trad and socially acceptable. She wants FE to be a face book and a trad(?) forum - so she ends up with a forum over run by NOers who, just like the conciliar church, falsely label themselves as Traditional Catholics - not all of the posters there of course, but most of them.

When a "Trad" forum tries to imitate Facebook, the results won't be good.

[Kaesekopf]

Matthew, I apologize for this post being so long.  However, my forum (along with my moderating team and my moderating decisions) are being mischaracterized by ServusSpiritusSancti.  As such, I strove to keep this message as short as possible, while retaining the pertinent and important facts and quotations from SSS and Vetus Ordo's dispute.  
End note.

SSS, please stop mischaracterizing what happened over at Suscipe Domine.  You and Vetus were arguing about the nature and education of women.  Vetus Ordo took a shot at your preference for Pius XI and his opinions over the opinions of the post-conciliar popes.  

Vetus and you then had this exchange:

Believing that women can't pursue university degrees because it's "against their nature," or because such places are unique "cesspools of sin," or thinking that self-employment is a realistic target for most young women, etc., seems to me to be altogether dettached from reality and the contigencies of modern life. This is not mere prudence or a healthy scepticism of modern institutions, it's to live in a world that only exists inside one's mind. We were all born in the 20th century, folks, whether we like it or not. Let's try to make the best we can with it.

Again, that's not a Catholic mindset. We are in this world, not of this world.

Properly speaking, yours is not a Catholic mindset. It's more of a cultic mindset based on fear and self-reclusion.

As a fallen away Catholic, I don't think you have any place to tell me that my mindset is not Catholic.

After that happened, THIS exchange took place:

What a Pope has to say, even if it's not a Dogma, is not merely an "opinion".

That's your own selection of popes. I'm sure you're not that forthcoming with Wojtyla's or Ratzinger's musings, are you?

No, I don't follow their teachings.

I thought that what Popes had to say were not merely opinions!

If a Pope teaches something contrary to Church Dogma we're not required to obey.

Believing that the Church of Rome can fall into heresy is in itself a heresy. Apparently Christ revealed this to the Apostles.

I never said the Catholic Church can fall into heresy. Now you're putting words in my mouth.

Furthermore, it seems rather outrageous that someone who belongs to a heretical church that believes they're already saved and that Christ is not present in the Eucharist would accuse someone of "heresy" just because they don't adhere to the teachings of Vatican II. You obviously don't understand the position of a Traditional Catholic at all.

And the moderators asked you not to attempt to lead people away from the Catholic Faith. Not that you would convince me, of course.

Here, I'm pretty sure Vetus Ordo took a shot against sedevacantism, which you apparently construed as an assault against the Faith.  I'm not sure how Vetus here was trying to "lead people away from the Catholic Faith."

It is, however, at this point that Bonaventure, a moderator (who happens to be a sedevacantist), posted this to the two of you:

Gentlemen, if you want to continue this discussion on the Church "failing," take it to PM. No more on this thread.

And yet the two of you, both Vetus and yourself, continued to make posts completely off-topic.   And, after Bonaventure told you to take it to PM, you and Vetus had this exchange:

I never said the Catholic Church can fall into heresy. Now you're putting words in my mouth.

The solution being that the Roman Catholic Church is not really the Roman Catholic Church. I know how that one goes.

Furthermore, it seems rather outrageous that someone who belongs to a heretical church that believes they're already saved and that Christ is not present in the Eucharist would accuse someone of "heresy" just because they don't adhere to the teachings of Vatican II. You obviously don't understand the position of a Traditional Catholic at all.

I do understand it, Servum. And I also understand your condescension: it's a defense mechanism.

And the moderators asked you not to attempt to lead people away from the Catholic Faith. Not that you would convince me, of course.

I was commenting on the matter of women's higher education. I'm sure many Catholics, laity and clergy, would agree with me.

Vetus, unfortunately you are stating more heresy and you really don't deserve any further responses. I'll pray that you leave that heretical church you're a member of and return to the One True Religion. In the meantime, quit trying to lead people away from Christ's Church. It's annoying to have someone spewing heresy on a Traditional Catholic forum.

Have a nice day.

Which then led into this post by Bonaventure:

Okay, enough.

None of the moderators, nor the forum owner, want people on this forum to use "logic" to "prove" Catholicism is false. Yet, it appears on topics unrelated to apologetics, ecclesiology, and so on.

Enough. This goes for all users an potential users.

And even after that SECOND warning, you and Vetus CONTINUED TO DERAIL A THREAD.  To which Bonaventure posted "Both of you, no more."  

Then there was a long exchange between you and Bonaventure, which led into Bonaventure posting this:

I told both of you to stop, to no effect, twice, because this is something way off topic. It's not because I agree with Vetus Ordo and disagree with you, or because I am ignorant of what he's been saying on this and several other forums ever since his fall into heresy.

I know, the forum owner knows, and the other moderators know.

What baffles me is how the entire administrative team of this forum is treated, from all sides, as it were. If a mod asks a user to do something, he is publically questioned and even pressed. If a mod deletes posts that were in violation in forum rules, same thing. Explanations aren't enough, and we have to spell everything out, as if we had to.

Comparing this traditional Catholic forum to Catholic Answers is completely out of line. If you sincerely think this place, a little site for trads of varying stripes, is too much like CAF, so be it.

And then the admonishment from JayneK and your reply was this:

As far as respect for the moderators, as a former moderator, I agree that mods often are not shown the respect that they deserve. But just as you all had the right to not respect Vox's decision to purge Trads, I also have the right not to respect the decision of the moderators here to practically give Vetus Ordo a free pass. If that gets me banned, so be it, but if I'm banned instead of a Protestant whose motive seems to be to attack Traditional Catholicism, then it shows that something isn't right here.

You do not have a right to publicly question the decisions of moderators (which, by the way, you are misrepresenting).  You ought to voluntarily leave if you are not prepared to follow the rules here.  If you get banned, it will be because you deserve it.

If the Faith is involved in the matter, anyone has the right to question the moderator.

It is also important to note that posts by Vetus Ordo were deleted in the past for expressing error or contempt for Catholicism.  One of our mods (tmw89) deleted at least 10 of his posts for such reasons on January 6.  

On the reparation point, I am not sure how a digital forum can perform reparations for anything.  It is made up by people, but the forum is one's and zero's stored on a platter in some nondescript building.  

As you also noted, there is a subforum at SD for registered members titled "Concerns about SD."  I'd post a link, but only registered members can see it.  We will listen to any concerns you have!  We've got five moderators, and we strive to do our best as Catholics.  

Also, just for the record, I read through all the "reported posts" on Suscipe Domine, and not a single post of Vetus's was ever reported by you, nor do I not have any PMs from you regarding "bad behavior" of any other posters.  Each of our five mods read the posts that are reported and we always discuss them and what actions to take (unless the actions are apparent, in which case the mod does the mod'ing).  

ETA:  The thread in question is here:
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=689.msg9588#msg9588
I don't think CI's forum software permits linking each quote to a certain post, otherwise I'd have each quote link to the particular post.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

Kaesekopf,

1- I shouldn't have to report a post from a Protestant for it to be removed. You saw that Vetus was acting up and did nothing about it. If I had reported those posts the results would have been the same. If you had really wanted to take action against Vetus you would not have needed someone to report his posts to do it.

2- He hypocritically accused me of "heresy" and started suggesting the Church had "failed". Furthermore, his mindset that a woman with kids can and should work outside is dangerous to any Catholic forum because it contradicts Church teaching. Again, you did nothing to correct him for spewing that nonsense, just a little slap on the wrist from Bonventure.

3- I'm not going to stop defending Church teaching from a heretic. If Bonaventure wanted it stopped he should have taken care of the problem: Vetus. But no, instead he told us both to stop discussing it, basically letting Vetus off the hook.

No matter how you attempt to slice it, Kaesekopf, I'm afraid you're wrong. I did not do anything wrong. I was slandered by a Protestant who was spewing heresy, Bonaventure did nothing about it and instead chastised me, Jaynek poked her nose where it didn't belong and admonished me, and you did nothing yourself. I'm sorry, but the fact that you attempt to justify that is not respectable.

I am not "mischaracterizing" your forum. It's the truth, and I'm going to keep warning people of how Vetus is put on a pedastal over there by some liberal members and how the moderating team approves of it.

Thank you for your response, but I'm afraid you cannot justify Bonaventure's actions.

God Bless.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

The quotes you provide from Vetus only prove that he was behaving the way I described. You just proved my own argument without realizing it.

By the way, I don't mean the entire moderating team approves of Vetus.

[Kaesekopf]

Apparently, Vetus is on a pedestal and we [the mod staff] approve of it.

News to me.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

The fact that you allowed him to get away with that behavior shows you approve of it.