[Sede Catholic]

FishEaters is the sorriest excuse for a "trad" forum I have ever seen. I can't believe she purges Traditional Catholics rather than the liberals who actually need it yet dares to call herself a Trad.
....
 

Dear Spiritus,
                       You are right about FE.
FE is just a semi-traditional forum, run by a Feminist.
FE is also a very BORING forum.

Far worse is the fact that many of the FE members are not really Catholic in their ideas about the Faith.
And many posters there seem ignorant about the Faith.

When I have read threads on FE, I feel out of place. I am not among my fellow Catholics.
On FE, I am among novus ordo types, and sometimes among blatant heretics.
The good posters there are in a minority, and can easily get banned.

FE is a hybrid monster: part novus ordo, part sspx, part Feminist.
CathInfo is a forum where almost everyone is a traditional Catholic.
We may have our disagreements, but on CathInfo we are almost all very deeply committed traditional Catholics.
And on CathInfo, you can be a Sede and speak the truth about the crisis in the Church without being banned merely for having the truth.
You can learn a lot about the Faith on CathInfo.

FE is often boring, heretical, rubbish.

[Dellery]

Dec. 19th 2012 - Fisheaters forum.

Scriptorium wrote:
"I would be very careful about your words here, since they do not merely exist in the confines of your mind, but are open to the whole world. And like some karmic wave that goes out, it can't be taken back..."

"Please read more carefully. I said like some karmic wave. All that means is that our acts set in motion chains of events which play out throughout all time. It was not a support of any non-Catholic teaching on action and consequence. Call it butterfly effect or fill in another analogy if you want."


Dellery wrote: " No, this is an instance where you mistakenly shewed your fangs. The context of your entire post history on this site has been a series of unorthodox opinions in the name of orthodoxy - the same kind of double speak St. Pius X warned us you filthy modernists consistently take advantage of. Taken together with the nature of your posts, it's quite unbelievable that you innocently used that analogy. You have also shown in the recent  past to be familiar with [sic] ,and a proponent of, pacifist, and new age ideas. Thankfully, as we have just seen, what is hidden in the dark will always come to light.

 *Disclaimer - Please don't take my word for truth, I implore all to carefully look at Scriptorium's contradictory and convoluted post history for themselves.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1142889;sa=showPosts "


Scriptorium wrote: " Well, I have a dedicated reader! My pacifistic questions have been with me my whole life. I didn't become a police officer because I didn't see myself being able to shoot someone. I was a Buddhist and taught others not to kill anything willingly. And since coming back to the Church, I have attempted to square the teachings of peace and non-resistance witht [sic] the teachings of just war and self-defense. I own a gun and am ready to use it if need be. I train in eastern internal martial arts.

As for New Age, I don't know what to say. The closes I've come to New Age stuff is reading Teilhard, and liking some music people might call new agey.

See, I used the adjective "karmic" because I am confident in my faith. I don't need to dance around a perfectly good analogy to convince you or others that I believe in Christ and His Church.

But then why I am defending myself? I am not hiding here. I freely speak with you all.

Kind of a shame. We could have gotten along. "


Dellery wrote: "Unfortunately the effects of eastern paganism are still lingering, which is why they were able to be pinned down in the first place. Moreover, I could never get along with anybody who shares their confusion with others so readily. You admonish others to mind their words on a public forum because they can't be taken back, and I agree, but let me also remind you that a damned soul can't be taken back either - a soul that could invariably hinge on the words typed on public forums. "


Vox Clamantis wrote: "Banned for snarkiness, overly rigorist posts, lack of respect for other posters, general nastiness"

---

Vox Clamantis also wrote on Dec. 26th 2012: "FYI:  For the past few months (at least!), I've made post after post lamenting the presence of "trads" who are overly negative, joyless, pharisaic, overly-rigorist, and who tend to show great disrespect for the Holy Father, for fellow non-traditionalist Catholics (misled as many of them are), a disgusting attitude toward folks who suffer from ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations, and what amounts to true anti-semitism (as opposed to knowing what the post-Temple Jєωιѕн religion is and speaking about it with prudence, knowing about the power of AIPAC, et. al., and its negative influence on American foreign policy, having a clue about the history of usury and how it's led to disproportionate Jєωιѕн representation in places of power, etc.) and the inability to speak of the painful Truths of Jєωιѕн-Catholic relations with prudence. Oh, and then there's the snarkiness -- the all too prevalent sarcastic comments no matter what the thread, the turning of every other thread into a killjoy, Pope-bashing free-for-all. I mean, seriously.. You post an article about how the cute, 7-year old Joseph Ratzinger wrote a letter to the Baby Jesus, asking for .prayer books, and you get a reply that once again outlines the horrors of "Vatican II" (neverminding the question of whether it was Vatican II's docuмents themselves or that evil "spirit" we keep hearing about). When the Vicar of Christ, our Holy Father, gets snarked on even as his 7-year old self, something's got to give. Jeezaloo!

Like I said, post after post was written by me. But the folks who engaged in those behaviors kept on. I guess they thought I wasn't serious, thinking I was like the bad parent who's always saying, "I'm going to start counting to ten!" and following up with nothing. But I was and I am very serious. I believe -- I know -- that these types turn people away from Tradition. They, therefore, defeat the very purpose of my website.  I got really sick of hearing myself repeat the same stuff over and over and over, so I decided the only way to cope was to ban people who keep on with the snark and the disrespect and repeatedly do the virtual equivalent of knocking over the shrimp platter at a party. You know the type ---


SO, that's the deal with the disappearing posters. I've just had it. Some of you might not like that I am doing this; others of you might be very glad. But I can't do nothing about the problem. I didn't want to have to ban people, and it especially sucks when some of those people -- many of whom have been here for years --  I actually agree with lots of the time. But they simply "can't" express themselves with any prudence, subtlety, or balance. Some are quite bright and have some seriously good points to make. But I believe, given the months-worth of posts on the problem, that they've had plenty of time to amend their ways, and they simply haven't. I have a list of folks -- consisting, ironically, of 13 people -- I am keeping an eye on. If you're wondering "am I on that list?" then you likely are. The "troublemakers,"; as I've titled the list, seem to know exactly who they are.

If you follow the forum rules (see the menu at upper left), you should have no problems and nothing whatsoever to fear. My guess, though, as said, is that the folks I'm talking about know exactly whom I refer to. I believe this because just about every time the topic was brought up the same handful of people would rally from a defensive position, overtly defending the behaviors I've outlined. Why they apparently know they're snarky, negative, overly rigorist "hardliners" who are disrespectful of the man they at least profess to believe is Christ's Vicar -- said behaviors being ones that turn people away from Tradition! -- and would prefer to keep being that way instead of changing how they post is beyond me. But whatever.

The goal of this site is to heal the human element of the Church by furthering the "cause" of Tradition -- i.e., restoring the traditional Latin Mass and all of the traditional Sacramental rites, promoting sound catechesis, correcting the errors commonly taught in the post-Vatican II era, promoting popular devotions, etc. I will not allow those who defeat that purpose to remain here on the forum. It'd be stupid of me, likely even sinful. I'm done.

For the rest of you -- the vast majority of you! -- carry on with your beautiful, fine traddy Catholic selves! God bless... "

---

 Lets not forget how Vox Clamantis defines the varieties (!?) of Traditional Catholics:

" Please know that no given post at this forum is indicative (necessarily) of the opinions or attitudes held by the Fish Eaters Website. Opinions expressed at this forum come from a variety of traditional Catholics -- some of whom the site-owner, VoxClamantis, may disagree with vehemently. We're just folks here trying to find our way through the confusion, and worship Christ the best we know how. Some of us are highly educated, some aren't. Some are intellectuals; some are not. Some like to argue; others like to discuss. Some express themselves well; some don't. Some attend Masses offered by priests with ordinary jurisdiction, some attend Masses offered by the S.S.P.X., some attend either one without qualm, and some might attend attend either with qualms. Some see attendance at the N.O. Mass, when no traditional Mass is available, as mandatory barring severe abuse; others avoid the N.O. Mass entirely."

 ...lest we also  forget...

" This forum is for adult conversation about real life, for real grown-ups, with most of us having grown up in the 70s and 80s. Leave the coyness, the fake shocked expressions, the tongue-clucking, the swooning, the unwillingness to properly name body parts, the Holy Card Impersonator schtick, the "Why, I nevah" stuff (especially when you most certainly did), and other such silliness to other people's forums. Prudery won't be tolerated. Leave any Puritanism back in the hands of 17th c. Calvinists and Jansenists; we are 21st c. Catholics here, and as Hilaire Belloc wrote:

"Wherever the Catholic sun does shine,
There's music, laughter and good red wine.
At least, I've always found it so:
Benedicamus Domino!"  "

 Wham bam thank you ma'am indeed, truly the words of the harlot.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

I just thought of something. Vox probably saw me say on here that she was soft on gαys. So that's likely why she banned me, I've probably been banned from there for weeks without even knowing it.

[Sede Catholic]

Dellery, we are indebted to you for these quotes:

Banned for snarkiness, overly rigorist posts, lack of respect for other posters, general nastiness

FYI:  For the past few months (at least!), I've made post after post lamenting the presence of "trads" who are overly negative, joyless, pharisaic, overly-rigorist, and who tend to show great disrespect for the Holy Father, for fellow non-traditionalist Catholics (misled as many of them are)...

....the turning of every other thread into a killjoy, Pope-bashing free-for-all. I mean, seriously.. You post an article about how the cute, 7-year old Joseph Ratzinger

...and you get a reply that once again outlines the horrors of "Vatican II" (neverminding the question of whether it was Vatican II's docuмents themselves or that evil "spirit" we keep hearing about). When the Vicar of Christ, our Holy Father, gets snarked on even as his 7-year old self, something's got to give.  

So Vox is anti-traditional Catholic.
And Vox is a big supporter of Antipope Benedict XVI.
Vox Clamantis is an evil woman.
Vox is leading people away from God.
Benedict XVI NEEDS these FE types to drag the deceived semi-traditional Catholics into the conciliar fold.

FE is a tool of the conservative wing of the heretical conciliar church.

FE should be avoided, except by those who go there viewing it as "mission territory" (that is a term that Matthew used to describe the view of some people who come on CathInfo trying to change us to their errors.)

In other words, only go on FE to convert them.
And only do that if you are a real uncompromising traditional Catholic. The type Vox would delight in banning anyway.

I seriously think that it can confuse people about the Faith if they read a forum like FE, unless they REALLY DO understand the crisis in the Church.

[Dellery]

 Spiritus Sanctus, JayneK has been lurking around here lately, she could've saw something you typed and reported it.

[Sede Catholic]

Dear Spiritus,

You were banned from FE:

That is a badge of honour.

God Bless you, my friend.

Yours,

Sede Catholic.

[Dellery]

Sede Catholic:

I seriously think that it can confuse people about the Faith if they read a forum like FE, unless they REALLY DO understand the crisis in the Church.

 Truly.
 I believe it's even more dangerous than CAF, because as you have said, it serves to: "drag the deceived semi-traditional Catholics into the conciliar fold."
Anybody questioning the new theology will be directed right back to it, by Fisheaters, sickeningly under the guise of Traditionalism.

[Sede Catholic]

Yes, Dellery, that is exactly it!
Anyone who is even slightly Catholic can see through CAF.
But the other "traditionalist" forums are more opaque in their spreading of errors.
Therefore, because of FE, people who do not really understand the problems in the conciliar church can be lead away from the Faith.

Those who do not have a clear understanding of the problems in the conciliar church should avoid FE, and other such faux-traditionalist forums.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

You are correct, Sede. It is indeed a badge of honor, just as my banishment from "Catholic" Answers two and a half years ago was.

I only registered there to keep in touch with some friends of mine who are/were members there (most of whom I realized don't even post there anymore). I hadn't posted there in a few months. I thought it was disgraceful that profanity was allowed there, not to mention certain gαys there who defended gαys being able to "cuddle" and were vigorously defened by Vox. It's disgusting. That place is beginning to make even CAF look half-decent.

[Jaynek]

Spiritus Sanctus, JayneK has been lurking around here lately, she could've saw something you typed and reported it.

I have been a member here for a year and a half.  I don't post much but I try to keep track of the posts here.  Assume that I am always lurking.

I did not report anything.  And I would be very surprised if Vox banned people on FE for posts they make here.  I suspect she banned SS for something he wrote there shortly before he stopped posting/reading.  He has probably been banned for months but only just found out now.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

I did not report anything.  And I would be very surprised if Vox banned people on FE for posts they make here.  I suspect she banned SS for something he wrote there shortly before he stopped posting/reading.  He has probably been banned for months but only just found out now.

That couldn't be it, because I was able to log into my account in October with no problem. And I also don't think I wrote anything on FE that was worthy of a ban. Even if I did, the fact that I could still log in a month or so after I quit posting tells me that it was something I said off of FE that ticked her off. I'm guessing it my post on page 1 of this thread.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

I'm guessing it my post on page 1 of this thread.

Should read: I'm guessing it was my post on page 1 of this thread.

[Jaynek]

I did not report anything.  And I would be very surprised if Vox banned people on FE for posts they make here.  I suspect she banned SS for something he wrote there shortly before he stopped posting/reading.  He has probably been banned for months but only just found out now.

That couldn't be it, because I was able to log into my account in October with no problem. And I also don't think I wrote anything on FE that was worthy of a ban. Even if I did, the fact that I could still log in a month or so after I quit posting tells me that it was something I said off of FE that ticked her off. I'm guessing it my post on page 1 of this thread.

I have never seen Vox express the slightest interest doing anything like that. It is completely unlike her.  Most often she bans in response to complaints.  Here is a likely scenario:  Somebody complained about something you wrote shortly before leaving.  Vox got way behind in dealing with her emails. (She was going through the final illness and death of her father during this period and I noticed her having less time for forum business.)  She finally got around to responding to the complaint and banning you sometime after you checked your account.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

Well, that's possible, though I have don't know what I posted that would have triggered a complaint. I can't look through my old posts because once you're banned you can't view the board.

As for her father, I'm sorry to hear that. May his soul rest in peace.  

[stevusmagnus]

And I also don't think I wrote anything on FE that was worthy of a ban.

Logical Flaw: You assume you have to write something worthy of a ban to be banned from FE.