Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Computers, Technology, Websites => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on February 28, 2009, 10:32:47 AM
-
Hello all!
I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce myself to you all. :cool:
I had not heard of this site but was directed here by two Fish Eaters posters.
One described your site as "full of crazy white supremacists".
Considering the source is a self described pant wearing feminist who wears flip-flops to mass, I suppose that should be considered a compliment. :laugh1:
In any case, to fill you in, after 3 years and 5,000+ posts on Fish Eaters I was banned without warning and without explanation by Joe "Quis". Afterwards, FishEaters displayed their Traditional Catholic Charity by starting a thread now up to 5 pages dedicated to personally calumniating me in my absence.
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=3332694&trail=14
If INPEFFES is reading this, I thank him, as he is the only one with the moral courage on the thread to speak Catholic truth and risk his own ban in the process.
Joe finally wrote what appears to be half justification half rambling sermon where, with his divine knowledge, he proceeds to publicly psychoanalyze me as an excuse for the ban. At least he does admit that there is no rule that I broke he could point to. The best he could do was to cite some nebulous "change" I had exhibited "over time". :laugh1:
In any case, a kind soul has brought to my attention some facts regarding the Fish Eater Forum owners. I will withold the name to protect the person from cruel harassment and an almost certain ban. The message is as follows:
I don't mean to be a gossip, but the whole sad affair was announced at FE:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1958895
Vox and Quis were both married to other people when they started chatting. They left their spouses and now live together.
It's disgusting, and a lot of people aren't aware of it. Quis and Vox call themselves Traditional Catholics but they are anything but.
They definitely need our prayers, as do many of the others who post there.
Perhaps your expulsion will make sense to you now.
Indeed it does make more sense. To discover this information after 3 years of posting on the board, assuming "Quis" and "Vox" to be sacramentally married, is shocking to say the least and disappointing. Beyond the questionable personal morality involved there is a proud public announcement and celebratory atmosphere of a civil marriage being entered into by a Catholic already sacramentally married.
Then, as is typical on Fisheaters, some posters, out of fear of an arbitrary ban, turn a blind eye to the affair and get upset, not by the apparent adultery, but by other posters actually warning the forum owners of the moral consequences of their actions!
I do feel it is a blessing that I have discovered this information. In effect the site owners, instead of wasting millions of typed pages proclaiming their version of Catholic Tradition should be more focused on righting themselves with Our Lord before judgment. The public accusations of sin from "Quis" towards other members and his attitude make more sense now as it is guilt projected. It makes sense that someone would defend so sharply the moral certainty of acting on advice of "a priest" even if he is objectively wrong. "A priest" = the priest who told him it was a-ok to get civilly married and date a woman he met online before receiving an annulment from his own 12 year marriage with 3 kids.
What a sad, sad affair. Rather than any scorn or ridicule I ask for your prayers for these people. For the site owners and their situation but also many of the posters on the site who are lost and do nothing to contribute to personal sanctity; rather tearing down others than building up the Mystical Body.
In any case, I look forward to discussions on here.
Many of you are probably familiar with the hypocrisy on the other site and can relate. In fact I fully expect some of them to add this post as fodder for their calumny. They need our prayers.
God Bless!
-
I have read your posts over there. Welcome. No scandal here, I was aware of what had transpired. Chant is a great person in my opinion.
-
For any FE lurkers, the FE thread on CAF I posted on was shut down, not because of my posts, but because of forum violations (ad hominem attacks) by Quis, La Roza, and Dauphin. My post was fully within forum rules. Theirs were not. Oh the irony! :laugh1:
-
Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Hello steve I used to be a fishie too.I know you!you were one of the few people who posted wise things.the man with a man avatar and father of at least one baby!
Can you guess who am I?
-
I give up! Tell me. ;)
-
Quis said that if he was a priest he would never baptize me and that I will go to hell.why?because I said that he was lax!
I want to answer that if I were a pope I would EXCOMMUNICATE him and his concubine!because just as it is impossible for a girl like me to become a pope,it is impossible for an unchaste man like him to be a valid priest!!!
-
Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Hello steve I used to be a fishie too.I know you!you were one of the few people who posted wise things.
You know, it is funny the amount of PM's I'd get on FE telling me the same thing, and since the ban many posters have told me the same thing. There is a hidden undercurrent of true Tradition at FE but it is kept somewhat underground for fear of reprisal. The various liberals there make it almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion.
The brave souls who stand up are the ones who get struck, but indeed it is an honor to suffer for the Truth.
-
Quis said that if he was a priest he would never baptize me and that I will go to hell.why?because I said that he was lax!
:laugh1: Doesn't surprise me. There was a fellow who was banned twice from the forum ( a great accomplishment) who would always get the best of Quis in arguments (Caminus). He was, of course, banned. Quis could not point to a rule violation so he later gave some nebulous reason.
The bottom line is that if he can't point to a specific rule why you were banned it is because you were consistently getting the better of him in debates.
I have to say, I would suspect it is a real temptation to become prideful as a forum moderator. As Caminus said, it has seemingly gone to Quis' head. I didn't believe him at the time, but sadly it is true. "Quis" is living in a false reality.
I should have spoken out more for Caminus a his banning was an injustice. I know now to look at how other people are treated in a forum by the moderator because that is how you will be treated as well.
Those people who join in the calumny in order to not offend "Quis" (but have no problem offending God) are going to be quite surprised when they step over the ever moving line and find themselves gone. Then again it is a blessing for them to be gone. I should have left long ago voluntarily and would have had I known the scandal caused by the site owners' private behavior. It really is sad.
God bless!
-
I've heard "ChantCD" calumniated there as well and I don't even know him.
Chant, do you have experience there as well?
Thanks.
-
FE is FE. Leave them to themselves.
-
gladius,
Were you "banned" as well?
Carthusian posted this over there:
With Stevus gone...this is just like the time gladius_varitatis was banned. I rather enjoyed Stevus's discussions
-
One described your site as "full of crazy white supremacists".
I've been described as a "crazy white supremacist" many times. :laugh1: I posted on FE briefly but because I opposed them allowing a blasphemous Jewess to post on there and stated that I was for segregation because it is part of the natural order of things, I was called a "racist". The idiocy on FE, particularly of QuisUtDeus is astounding.
-
gladius,Were you "banned" as well?
Yes. If you look in the old controversial folder, which should still be in the archives, I did a lot of work over there. I got attacked regularly by people who could not control themselves and did not know as much as they thought they did, broke no rules but got booted more than once, etc., etc., blah, blah. Let it be; let them be.
-
The idiocy on FE, particularly of QuisUtDeus is astounding.
I agree with this statement. The hypocrisy is amazing as well. They are still calumniating me, 6 pages and counting, all the while decrying my supposed lack of charity. :laugh1:
It really did turn into the twilight zone over there.
-
gladius,Were you "banned" as well?
Yes. If you look in the old controversial folder, which should still be in the archives, I did a lot of work over there. I got attacked regularly by people who could not control themselves and did not know as much as they thought they did, broke no rules but got booted more than once, etc., etc., blah, blah. Let it be; let them be.
Indeed. It seems to be an epidemic.
I agree, all in due time I will. However, since they are deliberately running the calumniation thread against me, all the while decrying calumny (pretty neat trick ;) ) I need an opportunity to respond out of justice.
-
Yes, many of us know all about the Fisheaters affair (pardon the pun). In fact, since things are never archived or deleted here, you can find the thread! It was one of the longest threads ever on this site.
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=2557
Most of us have moved on, though... months ago, even years ago for some!
Matthew
-
Chant,
Sorry, it is all new to me!
What is your opinion of Mr. "Quis" and the FE site?
Thanks.
-
Was this marriage situation/ scandal ever resolved in a Catholic manne?
-
However, since they are deliberately running the calumniation thread against me, all the while decrying calumny (pretty neat trick ;) ) I need an opportunity to respond out of justice.
I know the trick well, and have had well-known priests do the same to me in public emails. We do have a right to defend our good names, but sometimes it is better to let the dead bury the dead, so to speak. Life is so much bigger than these narrow men and their reign over certain (piss)ant hills. 'Tis your call, of course, and I would not think less of you if you decide to take either road on this one. God speed.
-
Good point. If they delete the "Stevus" thread entirely, I'd be glad to forget they ever existed from here on.
-
Honestly, in your situation, as hard as it may sound to do, I would let it go and not even go to look at what they write - at least for a good month or two. It will serve little to no purpose, and ruin your own peace of heart. Again, though, it is your call.
-
...it is impossible for an unchaste man like him to be a valid priest!!!
Well, I don't think that's true.
-
Hello Stevus!
I was St. Jude on Fisheaters. I deleted myself shortly before Christmas for two reasons.
The first was for witnessing the constant attacks against a fellow poster who did nothing but quote from the writings of some of our greatest saints. I enjoyed his posts and added his blog to my Favorites. I did not run out and buy a hair shirt and a cilice nor did I blind myself to avoid accidentally glancing at a member of the opposite sex. I simply took the saints' advice in the spirit in which it was offered: as an invitation to do penance and to refrain from sin.
The other reason came from having three perfectly reasonable posts I had made one day all get contradicted. One post was on the famous "illegal immigration" thread. I put a lot of time and effort into explaining my position on that thread only to have it answered with Rush Limbaughisms, i.e. "What part of illegal don't you understand?" I'll go talk to a second-grader if I want to have that kind of an argument.
Another was on a thread where the OP asked if he had to pray five decades of the Rosary all at once or if he could say one decade, then an hour later when he had time, say another, and so on. I stated that when praying the Rosary, one should set aside sufficient time to say at least five decades in a row, but another poster replied after me and said condescendingly that I "meant well" but that I was doing more harm than good with my advice and that actually it was perfectly acceptable to say bits and pieces of Mary's Psalter at one's own convenience. The last straw that day was when on another thread I made the uncontroversial comment that overuse of antibiotics can weaken the immune system and one of the moderators accused me of promoting "Social Darwinism"!
Well, I spent about an hour preparing scathing attacks against all three (one of which implied that one of the other posters was guilty of habitually committing unnatural acts in the basement of his mother's house where he undoubtedly lived) when I realized that that forum was becoming a near occasion of sin for me, tempting me into displaying a lack of charity and Christian humility.
Now, I already knew that many posters on any forum are people who just like to argue for the sake of arguing; some don't even read the previous posts before responding, some have an axe to grind, others are simply idiots, etc. But when even the moderators fall into those categories, what hope is there for the rest of us?
I was reading on it today and I noticed that there were almost no new topics since yesterday. Your presence there, Stevus, will be sorely missed.
-
Another was on a thread where the OP asked if he had to pray five decades of the Rosary all at once or if he could say one decade, then an hour later when he had time, say another, and so on. I stated that when praying the Rosary, one should set aside sufficient time to say at least five decades in a row, but another poster replied after me and said condescendingly that I "meant well" but that I was doing more harm than good with my advice and that actually it was perfectly acceptable to say bits and pieces of Mary's Psalter at one's own convenience.
Do we ONLY call our mother's when we have chunks of time to chat, or do we call whenever we can? Whether the person who said you "meant well" was, IN FACT, condescending, they were right - and you were wrong (or, rather, were coming from too rigorous a perspective). Why not take your principle to the logical conclusion, saying one should not even bother unless he is going to pray the ENTIRE ROSARY, as five decades is merely a "corona", and is incomplete?
In this totally disordered world, it is PRAISEWORTHY to take whatever snippets of time we can to pray, whether by frequent ejaculations, single decades of the Holy Rosary, etc., or full hours where we pray the entire Rosary.
Now, go call your mother, even if it is a SHORT conversation.
-
Chant,
Sorry, it is all new to me!
What is your opinion of Mr. "Quis" and the FE site?
Thanks.
First of all, I should point out that Quis has distorted history a bit when he talks about my "banning". I was banned after refusing to leave a thread started by "CaroleK". (They later removed that thread) I was rationally and without emotion putting forth Catholic teaching on a matter, and CaroleK started to get upset and asked me to leave "her thread" -- which I didn't do. It was that thread mostly which got me banned. There was no conspiracy-related matter that caused it -- though the CaroleK thread might have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Vox had recently set the "Zionism" subforum such that "only mods can post" and was generally moving away from things which would make a person stand out from their non-Catholic friends and coworkers.
Fisheaters has gone downhill, with a liberal and world-tolerant mindset dominating the forum, not due to accidentals of membership, but arising from the very leadership itself. I am referring to the forum, of course, and not the Catholic apologetics pages.
Moreover, the mods there HAVE to be quashing their conscience to a certain extent, as most of the mods were fired at one point (shortly after the "scandal") and ALL of them know the situation between Vox and Quis, but say nothing about it. They have compromised, and we all know what effect compromise has on a person.
Nevertheless, I tend to share Gladius' opinion that it's better to "let the dead bury their dead" and that the best rebuttal to their charges (including: misrepresentation, backbiting, gossip, slander) is to live a holy Catholic life both on and off the Internet -- for example, you can post your good Catholic posts elsewhere (like here) and people will see the real "you". We all know that half of FE has this site bookmarked *grin* (It's true that for every member there are probably 3 or 4 lurkers that haven't signed up, but are READING the posts. A serious-minded/news site like this one has a lot more lurkers, since people often don't know what they can/should post)
In short, on FE there is a 900-lb gorilla in the room (Vox and Quis' illicit relationship/affair/adultery/cohabitation/whatever you want to call it) that nobody talks about. Everyone pretends "everything is fine" and most new members assume that they were married right out of high school or something.
It is a very good strategy on their part -- to censor (discourage) all discussion on the topic. I know that it DOES work -- it's human nature. "What men do not see, they soon forget about." I learned that from the Greek mythical episode of King Midas and the Minotaur. I know it's ridiculous mythology, but this particular lesson about human nature is 100% valid. How would YOU deal with your wife eloping with a bull and giving birth to a man-bull? I must say, having a labyrinth built and putting the man-bull in there, so people won't see it every day, was about the wisest move he could have made. Sure, a handful people will remember (like the 9/11 Truthers of our own time), but most people will soon forget about it, since it's "out of the picture".
Matthew
-
they say that not to speak freely about that 3 lettered word and body parts is puritanism and jansenism.
in forum rules Vox says:"prudes go away" her petpeeves are:pruddishness and non-smoking environments!
i
-
Do we ONLY call our mother's
Clearly the possessive (in bold) was a typographical error, or plain old mistake.
Is it better or more desirable, given certain circuмstances, to pray five decades, etc.? Sure, but life does not always allow us to do what is the most desirable thing. All the same, we should take what we can get, and offer what we can offer, small and poor though it may sometimes/often be. God speed.
-
The word is "SEX", and while loose morals are to be deplored, a rigorous approach is also a problem. The V2 and post-V2 laxity is nothing but a response to the purely-external and oft-rigorous mis-presentation of the Faith in the 1950s, etc. Such an approach is still seen in many a trad chapel, as they are trying their best to keep some semblance of the Faith in a world that has been inundated in filth. Some, in reaction, are falling into error by way of "compensation", which often ends up being OVER-compensation. God speed.
-
So, if "chastity" was too much for St. Vincent, what if I tell you "purity" is too much for me? I could argue that the mere word automatically brings thoughts of the contrary word or idea? A man could not even go to confession if he was to abide by such a scruple and if he did so with a kind of universal application.
Using a word, almost ANY word, in a sane and balanced manner, is a totally different ball of wax than using it "freely", excessively, out of place, or in a manner that shows the mind has clearly descended into the animal regions or into mere frivolity.
GET REAL people.
-
Hello Stevus!
I was St. Jude on Fisheaters. I deleted myself shortly before Christmas for two reasons.
The first was for witnessing the constant attacks against a fellow poster who did nothing but quote from the writings of some of our greatest saints.
I think you're talking about luigi. I noticed that he was being attacked and mocked constantly, yet this was consistently allowed and encouraged by the owners.
There is a consistent pattern. If you are "too" Catholic then slanderous pile ons are encouraged (with site owner participation). If you are liberal and say something absurd, then tolerance is preached and those Catholics who protest are piled on. :laugh1: It's proof, in my opinion, that the site is about an agenda and not the Truth.
-
I realized that that forum was becoming a near occasion of sin for me, tempting me into displaying a lack of charity and Christian humility.
Indeed the forum is a near occassion by its nature for everyone who posts there.
Now, I already knew that many posters on any forum are people who just like to argue for the sake of arguing; some don't even read the previous posts before responding, some have an axe to grind, others are simply idiots, etc. But when even the moderators fall into those categories, what hope is there for the rest of us?
Exactly. You expect that from some posters, but when the site owners themselves , those in authority, persist in soul reading, baiting, ad hominems, strawmen, then really what's the point? Those in authority need to set an example, not wallow in the mud and encourage it and scorn those who do not.
I was reading on it today and I noticed that there were almost no new topics since yesterday. Your presence there, Stevus, will be sorely missed.
I appreciate that St. Jude. There are only a handful of posters there who "get it" and those are on borrowed time. Quis nearly banned telemaque for no reason at all. He's there defending his position, but it was the "wrong" position.
The irony is that it is supposed to be a free discussion board but the owners have an agenda. They try to incorporate that agenda into the rules. But then when a true Catholic stands up for the truth, doesn't take their bait, etc. they go ahead and ban you anyway. In doing so they lose credibility. This breaks the "rule" facade and shows them for what they are. They simply want to enforce an ideology. If you oppose that ideology too effectively without breaking rules, they simply kick you out and make up justifications later.
No reason was given for Caminus. Quis somehow saw a "pattern" of behavior he disliked. With me, I had "changed". :laugh1:
Perhaps some will have their eyes open like Archimedes that if they step out of line and oppose the site owners' personal ideology a little too effectively they are not welcome. So the site becomes really a "club" for groupthinkers where a few Catholics are allowed to remain in order to be mocked, as long as they don't one up the mods.
Quis' ire doesn't just stop with Trads. There was a Novus Ordo girl who came in making very good points and asking questions and CMM and I were having a good back and forth.
Quis makes some snide comments, starts baiting, she keeps responding with logic and sources, out she goes! CMM even started a protest post, but the cheerleaders shouted him down saying "It's his right to boot whoever he wants!" as they moved in line to lick his boots so they wouldn't be next. :laugh1:
Not sure what happened to CMM. He's probably banned too.
It's not surprising the new posts have dropped. I often got compliments on the sibject matter of the threads I started from the Catholics on the board. The liberals would immediately start to inquire about "why" I had started a thread. Their bizarre interest into my motivations became a source of constant hijacking. When I wouldn't play their game they divined my intentions for me and then blasted me on their assumptions of my intentions. :laugh1:
The whole thing was absurd. When Quis started losing an argument he would claim "at least I don't put my 1950's views on everyone else and judge them", etc.
They simply assume every thread I start or argument I make is based on some 1950's heresy I apparently adhere to. They knew they couldn't battle on my turf (the facts) and win. So therefore every thread became about me and my perceived failures, inadequacies, sins, heresies, proclivities, etc.
On my calumniation thread (still going) one poster even divines my soul! Quis even does a complete public psychoanalysis of me. :laugh1: There truly are some apparently "gifted" people on that forum!
-
Fisheaters has gone downhill, with a liberal and world-tolerant mindset dominating the forum, not due to accidentals of membership, but arising from the very leadership itself. I am referring to the forum, of course, and not the Catholic apologetics pages.
Indeed.
Moreover, the mods there HAVE to be quashing their conscience to a certain extent, as most of the mods were fired at one point (shortly after the "scandal") and ALL of them know the situation between Vox and Quis, but say nothing about it. They have compromised, and we all know what effect compromise has on a person.
Very interesting. I did lose some respect for a lot of the people I thought were good Catholics, who, when faced with loyalty to friends or God picked friends.
Also, I find it interesting that the NO reading for Friday, when Quis chose to ban me, was the passage where Christ forbids divorce. The first reading also spoke of "friendship" and how you know who your friends are when you are unpopular. It turns out that my only true friends on the board were ones I would not have expected. INPEFFES showed some true courage calling the calumniators on the carpet after I left. Of course he was summarily mocked and ridiculed as expected.
-
We all know that half of FE has this site bookmarked *grin* (It's true that for every member there are probably 3 or 4 lurkers that haven't signed up, but are READING the posts. A serious-minded/news site like this one has a lot more lurkers, since people often don't know what they can/should post)
Oh no doubt! Just as I predicted they are simply adding this thread into their calumniation. Quis is holding the thread open so that certain liberals can "defend themselves" against my "attacks" (aka Calumniate me) but yet he actually self-reighteously tells them he will not stand for them talking bad about "other" ex-forum members! And then one of them apologizes! :laugh1: It is true Alice and Wonderland over there.
In short, on FE there is a 900-lb gorilla in the room (Vox and Quis' illicit relationship/affair/adultery/cohabitation/whatever you want to call it) that nobody talks about. Everyone pretends "everything is fine" and most new members assume that they were married right out of high school or something.
It is a very good strategy on their part -- to censor (discourage) all discussion on the topic. I know that it DOES work -- it's human nature. "What men do not see, they soon forget about."
Indeed you are right. I notice that they are reading this thread but not a single one has the courage to bring this skeleton up. That's the problem with posting there. If you want to keep posting there you have to sell your soul and keep quiet. It is extremely effective. A lot of these poor souls are so tied to the forum they will put up with just about anything so long as they keep in the owner's good graces.
-
I like the part where several FE members are reminiscing about all the "good Fishies" that have been banned over the years, how they miss various members, etc... then Quis jumps in with "I don't like where this is going. Let's stay on topic, and not badmouth ex-members..." something to that effect.
Even though the thread was NOT going in that direction at the time. If anything, people were MISSING those ex-members.
At any rate, it was clever of him to gently steer the thread's direction. He sure doesn't want a stampede to CathInfo! (as further evidence that this was his intention, he moderated a link to one of Roscoe's posts here on CathInfo, for no apparent reason)
Matthew
-
Chant,
Not only that, do you not see the irony in that he forbids talking badly about ex-members, as posters one after the other talk badly about an ex-member? :laugh1:
But then he justifies that by saying they get the chance to defend themselves. Really? But yet he perpetuates their calumnies against an ex-member who he does not give the right to defend himself.
His hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.
-
Stevus, it's about time you got banned. :laugh1:
-
:laugh1: Caminus! We should start a club of posters banned for owning Quis in arguments!
I'm over at incorruptibles as well.
-
Caminus,
I think your final post to Quis, or was it an e-mail, summed it all up. You had the guy nailed. I'm sorry I convinced you to re-register there.
-
Well, anger at all manner of idiocy has given way to feelings of pity. That is another example of how "technology" can indirectly affect the mind. These boards are not "places" anymore than a letter sent to someone could be considered a "place." He is not the "king of a domain." The language of computers has perverted his thinking. For him, "banning" has become "banishing from the land." This fantasy has superceded a properly formed catholic mind. We see this in his personal life made public in the form of a fantasy "marriage" with this woman named "Vox."
-
Good way of thinking about it. I'm curious for you to read my threads here and give your take on my observations and Quis' final ex post facto justification of my banning.
Then comment on Vox's condescending sermon on why people are deleting themselves over there. She is obviously speaking of me in a lot of it, she just won't say it.
I always thought you were a giant playing with dwarfs in that forum. Also you've got Archie and O'Neill allowed to spew forth all manners of absurd historical counter example to show that basically everything untraditional is traditional.
Is there ANYTHING Traditional about Archie and O'Neill (LaRoza)?
-
Here's his ex post facto justification of my banning complete with sermonette, public psychoanalysis, and full condescension. Get your barf bag! :laugh1:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/show_single_post?pid=32243413&postcount=49
-
Here are the threads he uses as examples to justify my ban. Arguments where he was owned and struggling to tread water.
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=3327531
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=3303831
In one he says that a priest offering a 3rd or 4th ash service on ash wednesday is more important than offering even one confession time.
In another he argues that the opinion of a consensus of theologians is binding on our consciences. When cornered he admitted this means that Catholics in the 60's were bound to believe artificial contraception was licit to a moral certainty.
-
I don't have access to that website anymore. Besides, I would prefer not to sort through the muddy streams of drivel. It's rather nauseating. You are an upstanding Catholic that was ill-treated by others who claim the same name. Let this injury be an occasion of sanctification. That is one of the most difficult lessons of our faith, summed up in the Cross, but God never fails at offering numerous opportunities to perfect its practice.
Now if Joe has the courage to assert his opinions on this website, then I may feel inclined to set the record straight.
-
Somewhat of an interesting discussion you had going there about distribution of ashes on Ash Wednesday versus confession time.
I get confused at FE because it seems that a large number of the posters attend the NO where I would never expect to see confession on Ash Wednesday. As the default reference to Mass on this board refers to the Tridentine, if you're lucky enough to have a priest on Ash Wednesday, he's going to squeeze in as many Sacraments as he can. Personally, we had no priest around on Wednesday and therefore received ashes after Mass this morning.
What I didn't see mentioned in that thread was the very obvious element to Ash Wednesday (at least in San Antonio) in that the turnout is probably 3-4 times what you'd have on any given Sunday. It's part of the Mexican culture here to receive ashes even if you don't step foot in the church the rest of the year. And so, in offering ashes 4x a day and not a single minute for confession, the priests are encouraging that behavior. There should be ample opportunity for confession not simply because it's a good way to begin Lent, but also because there are many, many who have come for ashes who won't be seen for another year. Perhaps passing the line past the confessional door wouldn't be a bad idea either. :smirk:
-
Mater you're exactly right. It's nice to have a voice of reason.
Did you see how Quis kept trying to put words in my mouth but I wouldn't let him?
He finally got PO'ed and banned me.
Why he couldn't understand a simple concept you understood immediately and continued to stubbornly bait me for pages is beyond me.
-
I've not tried to discuss anything on FE in a LONG time. There are way too many members there who lack a basic ability to THINK.
You'll find much better discussion on other boards. AQ isn't bad, just a bit heavy-handed at times. I personally like CathInfo the best! :rahrah: LOL
-
Looks like Quis banned Catholicmilkman! This is sad since CMM was simply defending Gabrielle against Quis' banning her because he was losing an argument with her.
Quis also had various arguments with CMM where CMM got the better of him. It's unfortunate that Quis would ban these guys whereas in his posts he said he used to learn from arguments. In any case I hope CMM finds his way over to some of the other boards.
And may I suggest the reason Quis gets so much "hate mail" is the manner in which he bans people and not so much the fact that he did so.
It is noteworthy that O'Neill again feels some sort of obsessive need to continually praise the forum owner decisions no matter how arbitrary and capricious. I wonder if perhaps he fears the axe as well? It is only natural in such an atmosphere. Oh well...
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=3332694&trail=126
He was banned. Here's the thread with the obligatory "why was he banned?" comments.
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=3301886
Arrgh. I'm tired of justifying myself about these things because I lose either way. For example, I ban SouthernCatholic for talking smack about Luigi and calling him out, and she spews all kinds of venom at me in e-mail. Then I hear how I pile on Luigi from other people (which couldn't be farther from the truth - I liked Luigi's posts except when he said women should wear burkas; I just wish they always weren't so extremely ascetic).
As an aside, Vox banned Luigi for posting extremly unCatholic comments about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs written by the (rabidly) sedevacantist Dimond Brothers.
From now on I'm only going to tell the banned person why they were banned, and if people want to know they can ask them and discuss it in e-mail. I'm tried of the headaches and second-guessing (not that you were doing this, didi - I'm just complaining in general here).
-
Do we ONLY call our mother's when we have chunks of time to chat, or do we call whenever we can? Whether the person who said you "meant well" was, IN FACT, condescending, they were right - and you were wrong (or, rather, were coming from too rigorous a perspective). Why not take your principle to the logical conclusion, saying one should not even bother unless he is going to pray the ENTIRE ROSARY, as five decades is merely a "corona", and is incomplete?
In this totally disordered world, it is PRAISEWORTHY to take whatever snippets of time we can to pray, whether by frequent ejaculations, single decades of the Holy Rosary, etc., or full hours where we pray the entire Rosary.
Now, go call your mother, even if it is a SHORT conversation.
I hate to interrupt the thread but this really needs correcting.
If you only have a few minutes to pray than there are many other prayers to Our Blessed Mother that you could say without interrupting the train of thought necessary to meditate on a set of Mysteries of the Rosary. Following your analogy of "calling your mother," saying the Rosary in the interrupted fashion you recommend would be like phoning Mom, talking for three minutes on a given topic, saying goodbye, calling her up again a half-hour later, talking for four minutes on the same topic before hanging up, then again an hour later for three minutes, etc. You don't need to be a great mystic to see the deleterious effect this disjointed approach would have on your concentration.
Also, it is not a logical conclusion that because one should take time for at least five decades that one must therefore take time for all fifteen. The complete Rosary is already divided into three sets of five decades, each one being one set of Mysteries. Numerous saints and other learned authors have spoken about the need to say at least one set of five decades each day, thus acknowledging that one set of Mysteries can indeed be said separately.
We also have Mary's words to Blessed Margaret Mary that she prefers the Rosary to be said in a kneeling position. This infers that one should be willing to set aside a proper place and a sufficient time to show Our Lady the deference due to her. A truly devoted person will make time for Mary, not expect her to make time for him. It's a matter of respect.
-
I agree that there is a better way, a best way, etc. There is also reality, and in the modern, screwball world, time does not always permit. Just as the Rosary is rain for the parched ground of the soul, sometimes a little rain is, in fact, better at first.
-
You don't need to be a great mystic to see the deleterious effect this disjointed approach would have on your concentration.
Nor do you have to be a great mystic to realize that many moderns are already so messed up where concentration is concerned, that for them to begin and continue such a wonderful practice often involves baby steps. It is such people that are discouraged when they are held to be/made to feel like failures if they do not fit your ideal of what they should do, and how to do it.
-
Have you ever been given one, two, three, etc., decades as a penance? I have.
-
Hmm, I have six children at home, one boy has autism and C.P., one has autism and is VERY active. I take care of my 92 year old Grandmother as well. The children are home schooled. Believe me, there are many times when I have several "three" minute calls with my earthly mother. I do a decade of the Rosary every morning with the children and you better know that the rest of my day is spent saying Ave Maria as well as other prayers. To pray according to ones station in life is what is expected.
-
Say an entire rosary or don't say one at all is the most ridiculous advice I've ever seen.
-
I keep trying to delete my account on FE, but it's not letting me. I keep entering my password over and over again, but it keeps saying "invalid password". It looks like vox or quis did something to keep members from deleting themselves. I hope I get banned.
-
Say an entire rosary or don't say one at all is the most ridiculous advice I've ever seen.
Who's saying this?
-
I just post this in FE
If the sinner seeks repentance it is one thing but here it is an other thing it is the matter of Joe and Ron.the site owners both have ex-spouses.if they were repentant they would not continue to live with one another!
they may delete it!
-
and when I wanted to see the reaction of other members,
as soon as I enter the url of FE this message appeared:
Access Denied
You do not have permission to access this service. Please contact the administrator if you believe you should not be receiving this message. Be sure to mention your IP address, 217.219.55.116.
is it vox who did it?
-
look at his answer(I eventualy logged in using my dad's compute)
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/show_single_post?pid=32338699&postcount=46
-
I did it because I wanted them to repent and cease to give scandal.if I were their enemy I would encourege them and lead them to hell.But wished them good I wished them repentance.
-
You really have to post the actual text here when dealing with Fisheaters, as posts there are made out of straw, not stone (if you know what I mean).
Wow -- Cathinfo got attacked specifically (note that he never calls it by name -- he doesn't want to send any traffic here -- makes sense from his point of view)
Of course, he's mistaken -- but that's another story I don't have much time for right now. I have to get to work pretty soon :plant:
Just for starters, his mind is SO inflexible he thinks that a forum owner HAS to personally "bless" every post written, as if it came from the forum owner himself. That's a blog, not a forum!
No, Quis, I don't personally bless every post here, it's called a FORUM and FREE SPEECH. I don't allow just anything (swearing or blasphemy, for example) but I allow latitude for people to actually discuss things here.
And Quis is a clever guy, understanding propaganda quite well -- he knows what to bring up and what to pass over. Noticed he "passed over" the issue of LIVING WITH VOX. Just because his first wife had a mental issue which "possibly" invalidated their marriage doesn't mean that Quis can start living with someone else right now. If he had such a good reason for annulment, why not start the proceedings, patiently await the Church's decision, and THEN begin dating after the marriage is annulled?
He also misses the point when he complains about "detraction", etc. It's as easy as 1-2-3.
1. He's a public figure. 2. HE brought it up on Fisheaters, otherwise none of us would have known about it! 3. Souls are being led astray by his example. Need I say more?
Anyhow, here are Quis's own words:
Really, as Vox said in not-so-many-words, our personal lives aren't anyone's business. But since the perverted minds want to dwell on it for years and years, I'll say this much to correct some errors:
I didn't divorce my wife for Vox. In fact, I didn't divorce my wife at all. She divorced me - she's the petitioner on the papers, and it had nothing to do with Vox. Her and Vox get along fine, and that wouldn't be the case if I "left her for Vox".
My Sacramental wife and I were divorced because of problems between her and myself that I will not go into exact details about because there are three small children involved. Suffice it to say that there has been involvement from school officials, etc., because of her behavior. She wanted the divorce because I tried to stop that behavior and I was "mean and cruel".
And so that people don't get the wrong information, as usual, from the vocal brain trust of theological wanna-bes, divorce isn't prohibited by the Church in this day and age. In fact, in the United States you cannot get an annulment unless you get divorced first. Yes, you read that correctly. The Church requires you to get a civil divorce before they will even consider a petition for annulment.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying that civil marriage or re-marriage is allowed; the Church says it isn't. I am saying that you have to get divorced before the Church will even look at your petition for annulment. Sounds backwards to me, too, but that's how it is. Civil divorce, in itself, is not a sin and is a requirement for the petition of annulment.
Vox and I don't "flaunt" our marital situation, nor do most of the people who know us in real life know anything about the state of our marriage. The main source of scandal is those on the internet who are engaging in detraction and bring it up for no reason other than petty vindictiveness. I don't go over to other people's houses and ask if they masturbate, fornicate, steal, etc. and then post on other forums about it, but apparently some people feel like they're entitled to engage in detraction and gossip under the guise of "Catholicism".
If you're better than Vox and I, God bless you. Pray for me. Seriously. I love being prayed for, and God knows I could use them because if anyone could be in my shoes for 10 minutes they'd know what hell on earth is and some of the reasons for my divorce.
Oh, what the hell. How about one sordid story? The bottom feeders and detractors can't be left with nothing, can they?
OK. Any dog lovers out there? I love dogs. They are the bestest creatures in the world. I had 3 Mastiffs. Maggie, Spanky, and Blue. Maggie (Magenta) and Blue were named by my kids from the show Blue's Clues. I named Spanky from the Little Rascals, and I picked him out personally. They were all from the same litter.
Spanky was a cool dog. Nothing bothered him. Almost 200 lbs., he was gentle as a lamb. The kids would poke him, and he would just lie there. His tail was always wagging. He was also very protective. He did not like strange men at all, but he loved kids. Any time a man came towards the gate and the kids were out, Spanky would put himself between the stranger and the kids. He was my favorite.
Blue was the leader. She would tell the other dogs what to do. Even Spanky would listen to her (though, when she got bitchy, he would bark real loud in her face and she would back off). Blue totally loved me. I would lay down on the lawn, and she would run up and lie down next to me and put her head on my chest. Every time.
Maggie was the weirdo. I think, maybe, she was a little retarded. I think the other dogs knew this. Blue and Spanky both let her get away with murder. She could steal their bones, etc., and they wouldn't say anything. She was a tough dog and gentle, too. At one point, she had a dislocated shoulder for a month because she didn't let on. I only knew there was a problem because I petted her on her hindquarters and she jumped and turned real quick ready to bite. But when she saw it was me, she just sat back down. She must have been in a lot of pain when I touched her, but she still didn't bite me. So, I took her to the vet, they knocked her out, pushed her shoulder back in, and she was good as new - though she never let on she was hurt before.
I loved those dogs. They were my best friends. They were the first dogs I ever picked out myself in my life. Especially Spanky because I hand-picked him and got to name him myself.
But I only got to know them two years. Mastiffs only live to ten anyhow, but two years is too short a time to have with your best (animal) friends. See, these dogs died when they were two.
The dogs were kept outside of the house in a heated outbuilding. I had been working very long hours and hadn't seen them much, but that happened from time-to-time because at night we put them in the outbuilding and when I had a huge project, I often had to work late. But at one point I noticed them missing.
"Where are the dogs?" "Oh, they were out earlier and a delivery was coming so I put them away" "Where are the dogs?" "Oh, it was pouring rain out so I put them away early" At one point I said, "Where are the dogs? I haven't seen them lately - are they alive?" "Yes they're alive! Why would you ask such a thing?"
But, they weren't alive. They were dead. And considerably dead.
I still remember when I found out. I had just finished that project and was going back to normal working hours in a few days. I was driving home and I called the wife because I had ordered this book on building kennels. I wanted, as most dog lovers, the best I could do for my dogs. This had plans for automatic waterers, heated outdoor houses (so they didn't have to be put away at night), etc. I was all excited about it, and started telling the wife about it.
"We have to talk about the dogs." "What about them?" "They're dead"
What? When? How?
The wife tells me they got leptospirosis (aka Weil's Disease in humans) and died. She says they got sick, she took them to the vet, it was too far gone. She says she was trying to build up the courage to tell me they were dying, but before she could, they died. Then she was afraid to tell me that they died.
Except, all that turns out to be a lie. They didn't have lepto, and she never took them to the vet. I can't prove anything to a legal level, but either she neglected them or she actively did something to cause their death. Because three young dogs don't die on the same day without a little help. It's just too much of a coincidence.
But wait, it gets better. Here's the juicy part.
Mastiffs weigh 150-200lbs. I had 3 of them. I want you to imagine the dogs you love, rotting in the heat for two weeks. Then imagine 600 lbs of dog, aka, your best friends, rotting in the heat for two weeks. I had to use a backhoe / loader to bury my best friends while they were falling apart, dripping on the ground all the way to the mass grave I dug for them.
One day they were there - barking, playing, Blue laying on my chest like I was the love of her life, and the next they were 1/4 ton of rotting dog meat full of maggots and stench.
My dogs.
Do you guys like that story? Great gossip, huh? Go for it. Post it. Revel in someone else's misery. You know you want to. You know you love to. You know there are forums where you can freely engage in detraction and speculation and pick apart people's personal lives for your own amusement, so here's a hunk of bloody meat for you to chew on. Bloody Mastiff meat to be exact.
Of course, how people treat animals often describes how they treat humans. Including their children. And I'll leave the conclusions to be drawn to the reader, but say that might give some insight into the circuмstance of my previous (and binding under the Church until it's annuled) marriage.
I will say, however, that people don't behave as my ex-wife does without reason. She has a set of problems that I tried to help her with, and I still, in some ways, try to help her with. So don't think too terribly of her because in many ways she is a product of her upbringing and I don't think God will hold her culpable for much of what she does and has done. Actually, if you've got a chance, throw a few prayers in for her, too.
This forum is a place for people to hang out. It's not a Tribunal, it's not a Theological Institute, it's not any of that. It's for people to hang out to try to become better Catholics or have Catholic friends. Or even to post silly stuff about beer and boobs (yes, Orville is a valued member of the forum and always will be).
But it's not a place for the mentally unstable, the holier-than-thous, the detractors, liars, and calumnators. People like that can go to that other forum where Stevus, Caminus, Mike Solimanto, Angelofmercy, and the other sick ones hang out. You can hang out with Roscoe who calls black people "Nigerians" and the Siri Theorists. You can engage in detraction and lies about people. You can prove you're better than they are by picking apart their personal lives, making assumptions, and judgments. All with the blessing of the forum owner.
In fact, much of that forum's active membership is composed of people who were banned from here. In no small part because everytime there is a blowup at FE, people who get banned go there to rant and rage because the forum owner lets them. In fact, he revels in it. He bottom-feeds with banners inviting the "FE lurkers" to join his forum when they're over there looking at the spectacle.
If you want to see what kinds of people were banned from here, go to that forum. And that forum is run by someone who was banned from here and is an ex-SSPX seminarian under Bishop Williamson. I'm sure Bp. Williamson would just love it if a reporter went to that forum, interviewed the forum owner and reprinted the posts about the "Nigerians" and "THE JEWS" the conspiracy and end-of-world theories and held it up as an example of what the SSPX and Bp. Williamson teach in the Seminaries. And then by "logical extension" apply it to the traditionalist movement and the Catholic Church as a whole.
Of course it objectively is a bunch of nuts on a forum, but that won't stop the reporter. The people there and the forum owner don't care who they defame, what image they portray to the public, etc. Because, you know, they're holier than everyone else and it's their Catholic duty to engage in imprudent discussions, detractions, etc. even if it tears down people and especially Holy Mother Church.
But, that's not going to happen here. Ever. Vox and I will take this place down, burn it, and curse the ashes before we let this place be like that one.
Vox and I don't really care who leaves the forum because it is "tainted". That's up to them. Go, leave. Goodbye. Have a nice day. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. Stevus and Chant have the red carpet rolled out for you at the "holy" forum.
The forum is here for Catholics of all kinds (and non-Catholics) to hang out, not just the "holy" ones. If you can sustain sinners in your midst, you are certainly welcome to be here. Otherwise, shake the dust from your sandals and go.
-
Good grief. How many Fish Eaters threads do you have now?
You'll be needing a new subforum at this rate!
-
Of course it objectively is a bunch of nuts on a forum, but that won't stop the reporter. The people there and the forum owner don't care who they defame, what image they portray to the public, etc. Because, you know, they're holier than everyone else and it's their Catholic duty to engage in imprudent discussions, detractions, etc. even if it tears down people and especially Holy Mother Church.
But, that's not going to happen here. Ever. Vox and I will take this place down, burn it, and curse the ashes before we let this place be like that one.
Vox and I don't really care who leaves the forum because it is "tainted". That's up to them. Go, leave. Goodbye. Have a nice day. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. Stevus and Chant have the red carpet rolled out for you at the "holy" forum.
The forum is here for Catholics of all kinds (and non-Catholics) to hang out, not just the "holy" ones. If you can sustain sinners in your midst, you are certainly welcome to be here. Otherwise, shake the dust from your sandals and go.
Wow -- that sounds pretty uncharitable to me. "a bunch of nuts" huh? All of us?
Quis, you really need to stop obsessing about what "newbies to tradition" will think of your forum, and what things look like to outsiders in general. Just speak the truth, both IN and OUT of season, and let those of good will find it. When you hide the truth under a bushel, NO ONE can find it.
And you'd like to tear down, burn, and curse the ashes of any forum that threatened to become like CathInfo? I'm sorry you're so consumed with hate, Quis. Maybe you should lay off the rock music, regularize your living arrangements, and go to confession. You'll be much happier -- I assure you.
Sincerely,
Matthew
-
Angelofmercy, kudos for having the moral courage to bring this up over there! It was the hidden reason you were mercilessly attacked by Quis in the first place. This was confirmed as you were immediately lifetime banned by even broaching the subject. It seems they are not willing to dialogue on it. Only ban anyone who would try to tell them the truth in charity and keep anyone who would confirm their decision.
It seems you were not only immediately banned but even lifetime banned! Nevertheless, hopefully posters there can see this for what it is and stop contributing to the board and supporting them in this situation until it has been addressed. It truly is for their welfare first and foremost. If you are in such a questionable marital state, then for the sake of your soul you should stop running and pontificating on Trad Cath internet forums and address that first. As it is the forum just seems to be a distraction to the real issue and worse a running keyboard justification of their state with willing sychophants confirming them in their state and defending them so that they too aren't given the axe. Is forum membership worth confirming people in sin? The cheerleaders need to ask themselves this.
In any case Q&V can keep shooting messengers and "banning" them from their presence but the message remains and their guardian angels will keep reminding them that they need to address this situation in a Catholic manner and stop causing scandal by trying to justify it. I don't think they can "ban" the Hound of Heaven no matter how much they may try. Nor can they fool Him.
It seems they pride themselves in not "trashing" other forums but it seems this forum is ok to "trash".
Vox's response is quite disgusting and crude and serves as an example of the level of "discussion" you wil find at FishEaters. She mockingly describes fornication complete with ethnic slurs, pornographic references, graphic sɛҳuąƖ questions, etc. In fact if you have a weak stomach, or are easily scandalized, don't read this. I post it only as a shocking example to those Trads who may be thinking of visiting there to warn your friends to stay away from that toxic forum.
She gives an extreme (and quite disgusting) caricature of her situation, implying that since that is not what happened (exactly) then what actually did happen is a-ok. In addition there is the typical "we are all sinners" justification. Therefore unless you are sinless, you are to kep quiet about their public scandal and not "judge" them for it; and if you do, then YOU are in fact the worse sinner and they are mere victims of your cruelty and hate. Neat trick! ;)
Obviously whether or not they are actually having sex is a red herring. The point is what Chant and Salmontano and others have been pointing out since '07. As Catholics you don't pursue intimate relationships with the other sex, especially moving in with them (near occassion), if and until you have annulments in hand. By their logic Catholic guys and girls who are dating can shack up and live as "brother and sister" until they actually decide to get married and then they can simply start engaging in the marital act afterwards. This is madness! I wonder what consensus of theologians or what priest agrees with this rationale?
Again, Vox and Quis made this public (proudly) in '07, not me or Chant or anyone else. I just found out about it, to my horror, recently. In the interest of full disclosure I think those who post there and especially contribute money to the site should at least be warned.
If two Catholics start an apostolate and they are in the state of public sin do you simply support their apostolate and turn a blind eye to their conduct? Or do you not rather beg them to address it and pray for them to change their behavior before supporting it?
Vox ends her tirade against those who would object to shacking up while sacramentally married to another with "Now let's act civilized and with charity. Please."
After her rant against those who would try to steer her in the right direction, I think the irony is lost on noone.
Anyway, here is Vox's response:
Since no one here knows much of anything about any ex-spouses involved (except for the lovely character of Ron), or the reasons for and state of Quis's and my civil and (presently) invalid marriage, I think it would be prudent for people to stop speculating.
Or, if you "must" speculate, go all the way: how about this scenario? Really, let's just get it alllllll out of your system. Here goes!
Now imagine this hideous possibility: Quis and I were both validly, sacramentally married to sane, loyal, faithful Catholics whom we married when all four of us had the intention of having Catholic marriages, knowing full well what that all meant, being non-psychotic and such that we were willfully able to enter into such a thing. We all go along happily, and then Quis and I meet online long before any mention of divorce entered our lives. Yes, while married in the eyes of God to people who desperately wanted to be married to us and to whom we were married under the aforementioned conditions, we meet on the internet, fall in love lust, and must have each other. We say to the true spouses, "to hell with you two! We wanna [fornicate] with each other!" We (not the spouses, of course) suddenly bring up divorce, and the spouses fought the idea tooth-and-nail. But we left said spouses anyway, and did and do [fornicate] It's all so fun!
Having imagined that, now what? Would such a scenario make you feel better? Would it vindicate you in any way? Would it make you feel superior? Would it make the FE website and all it teaches any less true? Would it make the forum any less useful? Would it indicate that Quis and I necessarily don't believe and teach what the Church teaches? If all the above were true (which it isn't, but the details of our situation: can't be discussed publicly until the children involved are emotionally ready to hear seriously painful Truths, aren't anyone's business, and don't matter one wit because the tongue-cluckers just love to talk anyway), what would it prove? That Quis and I would be sinners? Well, you already knew that, didn't you? And so are you a sinner. And so is everyone else here. So what's your freakin' point except to gossip, judge without knowing much of anything about the facts, and/or feel better about yourself for some preconscious reason? I mean, really, get over yourself. We know and intellectually assent to every drop of what the Church teaches; whether we are perfect in our wills/behaviors, absolutely horrid in such, or just typically human is between us, our priest, and God. What needs to be public has been made public. The rest is none of your or anyone's concern.
And as to this "if they were repentant they would not continue to live with one another" bit, there's no church law against two people living chastely with one another, and there are a thousand reasons for people to share a house aside from the dirty goings-on that some people like to think about apparently. What we do or don't do sɛҳuąƖly is simply none of your business. You can imagine the best of us, you can imagine the worst of us, you can imagine things in between. But any "scandal" aside from our entering into a civil marriage before an annulment was received (a phenomenon which also has the support of a thousand practical reasons) is in your own mind, or else you'd have to accuse Mr. Brady of having a menage-a-trois situation what with Alice living just off that orange-avocado kitchen, and nevermind all those rectories with housekeepers. What you do with your imagination is your call, how you dare to judge others is your call, and how you use your tongue is your call.
But if you want to play the judging game and pry into our personal lives (as opposed to those aspects of our lives which are public knowledge, such as our civil marriage, or those that affect the our public relationship with our Church, such as how our present invalid marriage precludes reception of the Eucharist), then let's play the game fairly. Since alllllllllllllll the hoo-ha here basically boils down to the question, "Are Vox and Quis fornicating?" OK! (and rest assured that your answers will be strewn about the internet on various fora, magnified, twisted, and speculated on to be shown in their worst light! And anything you say hereafter can be simply discounted because it will be known you're no a traditional Catholic, but a scandalous sinner who can speak no truth from here on out). So to begin:
[Obscene talk removed] Ever eat too much? Were you sufficiently repentant? Do you like talking about other people's sins or alleged sins? Ever detract from another's character or commit the sin of calumny? Ever miss Mass without good reason? Ever take the bigger piece of baklava when there were only two left and another person was wanting some? Ever disobey or dishonor a parent in any way? When you wring your hands over what you think is Quis's and my situation, do you truly concern yourself with the thought of us burning in Hell for eternity, which leads you, in turn, to pray for us? Or do you prefer to gossip instead?
Are we done yet? Get my point?
Now let's act civilized and with charity. Please.
Sorry, Stevus. I had to tone down Vox's obscene attempt at "humor".
-
...Vox and I will take this place down, burn it, and curse the ashes before we let this place be like that one.
....
...
And you'd like to tear down, burn, and curse the ashes of any forum that threatened to become like CathInfo? ...
He didn't say "any".
-
Good grief. How many Fish Eaters threads do you have now?
You'll be needing a new subforum at this rate!
At the rate they're banning people, that might just be a good idea! :rolleyes:
-
Good grief. How many Fish Eaters threads do you have now?
You'll be needing a new subforum at this rate!
At the rate they're banning people, that might just be a good idea! :rolleyes:
:laugh1: As I said before, soon the "tolerant" FE forum will consist only of Quis Vox and their 5 or so cheerleaders.
-
Of course it objectively is a bunch of nuts on a forum, but that won't stop the reporter. The people there and the forum owner don't care who they defame, what image they portray to the public, etc.
Does Quis consider calling an entire other forum a "bunch of nuts" as portraying a good image for his own?
Because, you know, they're holier than everyone else and it's their Catholic duty to engage in imprudent discussions, detractions, etc. even if it tears down people and especially Holy Mother Church.
But, that's not going to happen here. Ever. Vox and I will take this place down, burn it, and curse the ashes before we let this place be like that one.
Your site is already FILLED with imprudent discussions, detractions, etc. that tear down people and Holy Mother Church. The plank/ splinter verse was never more appropriate.
Vox and I don't really care who leaves the forum because it is "tainted". That's up to them. Go, leave. Goodbye. Have a nice day. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. Stevus and Chant have the red carpet rolled out for you at the "holy" forum.
Indeed. All posters with a shred of Catholic morality and sense who do not agree that you should shack-up with someone and date them while they are sacramentally married to another, don't let the door hit your rear on the way out. You are the true intolerant judgmental sinners!
The forum is here for Catholics of all kinds (and non-Catholics) to hang out, not just the "holy" ones. If you can sustain sinners in your midst, you are certainly welcome to be here. Otherwise, shake the dust from your sandals and go.
"Catholics of all kinds" apparently doesn't include...
1.) Trads who believe in the sanctity of marriage.
2.) Catholics who try to convince public sinners to repent.
3.) Catholics who don't believe a consensus opinion of theologians binds us to a moral certitude.
4.) Catholics who think that perhaps a priest should offer confessions instead of his 4th ash service on Ash Wednesday.
5.) Good willed Novus Ordites who ask questions about Tradition but who the forum owner doesn't like.
6.) Trads who preotest the banning of Novus Ordo poster in #5.
7.) Iranian Catholic girls interested in the faith who don't beileve in divorce.
8.) Educated Trads like Caminus who offer a well defended position the owners can't defeat.
9.) Trads who post writings of Saints that prick the owners' consciences (Luigi).
10.) And finally those Catholics who are scandalized by curse laden sacriligeous depictions of the Archangel Michael as well as Satanic Heavy Metal videos.
I think that about sums up Quis' "open door" loving tolerant Forum. ;)
-
Good grief. How many Fish Eaters threads do you have now?
You'll be needing a new subforum at this rate!
At the rate they're banning people, that might just be a good idea! :rolleyes:
:laugh1: As I said before, soon the "tolerant" FE forum will consist only of Quis Vox and their 5 or so cheerleaders.
How many people they ban is totally up to them. It's their forum and anyone who goes to the trouble to create one is certainly allowed to foster the sort of environment they like to participate in. It's the lack of warning that makes people feel the need to discuss the issue elsewhere.
If "discussing the moderator's personal lives" was specifically against the rules, it wouldn't be necessary for AOM to come here and tell us that she'd been banned.
-
even if they live like brother and sister(as I hope it is the case)it is an scandal.I saw that one member justified having 3 children out of wedlock by saying"didn't vox and quis do that?"
she posted a laughing smilie and a baby smilie with a 3 near it!
-
the worst thing:
in my country there are sooooo many potential converts,specialy among women and girls.they say:"wow look how they venerate a woman(ie.Mary),"oh,how awesome is that church/icon/song!".then they see some christians in TV (through satelite) or in a magazine,the christians who wear topless and midiskrit get drunk and dance till midnight all of this while they have crosses in their necklecks.SO those would be converts get disappointed and say:"we are not immodest enough to become christians!"
a soul is lost so easily!!
-
It's the lack of warning that makes people feel the need to discuss the issue elsewhere.
That's part of it. No warning after 3 years and 5,000 + posts when you broke no discernable rule is indeed like a slap in the face. Why do that and make enemies if you are the forum owner? Especially when you've had cordial e-mail correspondence with this long time poster in the past. And in one of those e-mails, the owner gave advice and said "this is not formal warning" implying that if you were pushing the limits one would be forthcoming.
But in adition to that, no follow-up e-mail privvate correspondence saying what exactly you did that was upsetting.
Nothing. Just a form e-mail saynig you're not welcome and threatening to sue you. Is that Catholic? Besides Catholic, is that even polite? Classy?
I think it says a lot about the forum owner's character and thus the character of his/her site. It means everyone on that site is disposable on a whim. Not a good atmosphere.
If "discussing the moderator's personal lives" was specifically against the rules, it wouldn't be necessary for AOM to come here and tell us that she'd been banned.
Right. But I paid attention to the rules during my time there and, as Quis was even forced to admit, broke not one. I even pointed out where other posters were violating the rules, but Quis gave them a pass because he "liked" them. Now, I don't care if he gives passes, but the hypocrisy is deafening. Is it consistent to grant a rule breaker an exception yet ban people who violated no rule?
Why in the world even go through the formality of posting a whole bunch of rules.?
Just say:
Rules
Anyone and eveyone no matter how many posts nor how long you have posted here is subject always and everywhere to an immediate ban upon the site owners whim with no warning or justification whatever. Enjoy!
:laugh1: At least then they'd be honest!
As it stands the "rules" are just a charade. A bunch of selectively enforced words sometimes used as an easy justification for banning people they don't like. I just don't see why they bother with the pretense. Perhaps they can fool enough people into thinking there actually is some order, due process, and fairness about the whole thing?
-
the worst thing:
in my country there are sooooo many potential converts,specialy among women and girls.they say:"wow look how they venerate a woman(ie.Mary),"oh,how awesome is that church/icon/song!".then they see some christians in TV (through satelite) or in a magazine,the christians who wear topless and midiskrit get drunk and dance till midnight all of this while they have crosses in their necklecks.SO those would be converts get disappointed and say:"we are not immodest enough to become christians!"
a soul is lost so easily!!
Amen! And that sort of unfeminine behavior and dress are openly supported by many on FE. They also add to confusion on men and women's dress, mocking those who believe in Traditional dress to distinguish the sexes.
-
Vox is either very dense, or is pretending to be.
There is a big difference between a PUBLIC sin, and a private one.
When you're living together but not married, that's a public scandal. It's not like most peoples' sins which are usually private.
If Vox wanted to live in peace and not be critiqued, she shouldn't have voluntarily stepped into the limelight by running one of the largest Catholic fora on the Internet.
Sorry, Vox, but leaders are judged differently than commoners. They are held up as examples, and when they fall short, it's more visible (and dangerous!)
Moreover, if I didn't speak out about a public scandal, I would be guilty myself. Yet if Vox was my next-door neighbor, who no one knew, I would be gravely sinning by spreading around news of her sin.
But in this case, it's Vox and Quis themselves that made it public knowledge, and it forces good Catholics to distance themselves from approval of their actions -- lest innocent Catholics be scandalized.
Matthew
-
Exactly, Chant.
-
Such foul filth from those two. His wife was mentally imbalanced? Pot callling the kettle black if you ask me. We need to stop reading their explanations of what happened especially when Vox is lamely trying to be funny. It is a near occasion of sin for us all.
If you ask me she is having menopausal problems. BTW, I am Sicilian/German and Menopausal, and I really do think she has gone around the bend. It is best for us to leave them to their perverted rot.
-
Actually, I don't pretend to know what goes on between Vox and Quis.
What I DO know is traditional Catholic Church teaching on the matter.
Good or bad, strong or weak, a Catholic is not permitted to live with someone of the opposite sex who isn't a parent or sibling -- or spouse.
Putting oneself in a grave occasion of sin is ITSELF a grave sin. That's what Vox seems to be missing.
-
Chant nails it.
-
Good grief. How many Fish Eaters threads do you have now?
You'll be needing a new subforum at this rate!
At the rate they're banning people, that might just be a good idea! :rolleyes:
I think Q&V need to ask themselves why their board in particular has such a high rate of former posters who have bad feelings towards the board. Are they really so infallible that every single poster they banned was just a crazy hating kook? Or is there perhaps a pattern on their part causing it?
I know of no contingent of former posters of any other forum that consistently talk about mistreatment and deficiencies of their former site like FE. Quis even admits impliedly that this is a major problem. Why all the disgruntled ex-members? Why all the stories? I think it is reasonable to conclude that there is more of an institutional problem with the owners behavior than to conclude that a myriad of individuals are all simply deranged kooks and those deranged kooks just happened
to be omnisciently banned.
I'm all for a subforum here to provide support to those former/ current FE posters who experienced scandal, shock, sin, calumny, etc. there and to talk about their stories. I think it would serve as a great witness and warning to Trads to stay away from that board. Just a humble suggestion. I think you'd be surprised at the new register rate that would come of it! For every Caminus and Stevus there are a hundred out there just like us.
-
Also it would help to corral all FE threads to one section so that other posters who don't want to read about FE can easily skip over it.
-
The fishies got curious so Quis just came clean and provided a link to the '07 announcement thread of their civil marriage.
I'll comment later.
The original thread is here, as it has always been from almost 2 years ago:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=3332694
The whole reason it was brought up at that time at all is people on the forum knew Vox personally. If her last name changed all of a sudden and she moved 2000 miles, people would figure it out.
So, we decided to say something straightforward and direct rather than have rumors spread, etc.
Of course, some take that as "flaunting" it or whatever, but that's up to them. If we didn't say anything, others would argue we were trying to hide something and call that scandalous.
To make a long story short, Solimanto got banned from here for berating a forum member about something completely unrelated. He got ticked, went to Cathinfo and started ranting, claiming I left my wife for Vox, that he got banned for saying something about the wedding, etc. Pretty much like Stevus is doing now. Of course, I didn't leave my wife for Vox as I explained today, no one got banned for anything in that thread, the moderators weren't banned or de-moded for anything around that, etc.
Two years go by, Stevus gets banned, decides he wants to be vindictive, so he pulls it up again with the same nonsense Solimanto said two years ago. Same arguments, same erroneous assumptions about what happened, etc.
And now, here we are.
-
Exactly right. There is no black and white about these things. To cause scandal is a sin. To put yourself in a situation where you say "I am Catholic", and then live in a situation that is questionable at best, sinful at worst is to mislead people about the teachings of the Church.
A boy and a girl (more definately a man and woman) alone together are not praying the Rosary.
Marriage is until death do us part, even if and more especially if one of the spouses becomes ill - mentally or physically.
To allow all of the discussion about sex that happened on that board is to nautrally awaken desires in the persons reading it.
And guess what? If you have written something sɛҳuąƖ that leads another human to an act of impurity you will answer to God.
And to let young men give the impression that they are cross-dressing ( I know, I know, a love for "period" clothes,, what a crock) is to cause scandal to others. And, you will answer to God for it.
The bottom line is that to call the people on this board names is just to make themselves feel better while they wallow in rot. Misery loves company.
And for them to turn themselves inside out justify all of these behaviours is only kidding themselves.
-
Chant provided the link to the thread Quis is talking about re: Solimanto earlier.
I think it should be re-posted here for easy accessto compare the contents with Quis' allegations.
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=2557
-
My commentary:
You can look up the record for yourselves regarding Solimanto's "ban". It's funny that he gets banned for "berating" a forum member just minutes after he commented on Q&V's marital status. Oh yes, I'm certain his previous comment had nothing to do with his ban. :laugh1:
Oh come on! At least be honest about it and retain a little credibility. You are right indeed Chant! Quis is the master of propaganda.
Anyway, take a look at the Cath Info link on the previous page I re-posted. Solimanto is not "ranting", he makes a great case that this is a public scandal and that Q&V should correct it asap and that posters on FE should not be congratulating their civil marriage. I encourage you to read his thread yourselves. He makes great points in '07 that are, sadly, still just as valid two years later.
Quis simply just restated the same red herrings that he used in '07. Solimanto presents the evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Q&V's online relationship was a catalyst in the divorce decisions. Of course we will never know for certain since none of us can divine souls (except for Quis). However Solimanto rightly points out that hen you put all the facts together one reasonable conclusion stands out. Whether it is a certainty is not really the point though. The point is that the known behavior is not right (living together) and is scandalous.
It turns out that the former FE mods apparently left of their own accord when this situation was made public. Now whether Q&V told them leave or be de-moded, we'll never know. Sort of like a coach being told to resign or be fired. In any case we do know that the former mods left after the situation was announced.
Quis then divines my soul again (it must be a gift) saying I'm being vindictive. To the contrary I was alerted to this story after I was banned by a FE poster. I was scandalized and shocked myself. Like Mike, I think I owe it to V&Q to get this situation taken care of for the good of their souls.
This is a separate but related issue to the other types of scandal and inconsistency allowed on the FE board making it a general occassion of sin for many souls.
I hope that Fish Eaters will take this occassion to read both the '07 FE and CathInfo threads and come to their own conclusions. Hopefully that conclusion will be to stop aiding Q&V's efforts in distracting their consciences by running the board, call them to conversion and repentance, and pray for them.
-
As an example of how good Quis is at "managing the situation" -- note how he puts up a large distraction -- the sob story about his dogs -- which only serves to distract from the real issue at hand.
I'd say just give him EVERYTHING he wants on that heading -- namely, I'll grant him: "ex-wife was mentally unstable" and move on.
But we have the core of the matter now -- everything else is just a distraction. The core of the matter is: "Is it, or is it not, scandalous for a couple to live together while not sacramentally married -- and is it justified for Catholics to take issue with such a situation."
That is the crux of the matter.
-
Vox says "Here's the worst case scenario. Now what?"
I say, "Here's the BEST case scenario."
I'm presuming that Vox wasn't sacramentally married before, and that Quis might have a good hope for an annulment because his wife was crazy -- even at the time of their marriage (I'm really being generous here...)
But you still can't date someone -- nevermind live together -- whether your intentions are honorable or not, until you are married sacramentally. And you can't pursue marriage until your annulment is GRANTED -- as in, in the past tense.
Moreover, living together before marriage is a legitimate SCANDAL no matter what you're actually doing together.
And yes, it is sad. It doesn't make me happy -- but I see SO MUCH of this kind of thing in my travels, I'm almost used to it. I certainly don't need Vox and Quis's scandal to make me feel "better than them" or some such nonsense.
Our Lady of Fatima did say, "More souls go to Hell from sins of the flesh than any other..." and I even have relatives who have been "slain" by the world in this way.
It only makes me weary of how messed up the world's ways are.
Matthew
-
Exactly Chant.
I had been over at FE so long I thought that everyone on earth had lost the ability to reason! Truly if you hang out there long enough you are tempted to think up is down and down is up!
Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity.
-
Latest. Quis responding to a poster saying, "So sorry. People can be mean. Not just jerks or idiots or thoughtless but actually mean."
Well, Solimanto actually was honest and finally admitted he was banned for that other post. He admitted it on Chant's forum, in fact. Then he had his say and left it alone. Stevus and Chant think this is all fun, but now they're directing people to old threads that talk about why he was banned and will probably cause other people to be hurt in the process as their problems are publicly divulged.
So, they're not only being "mean" to Vox and me, but to others as well.
They don't care though. As long as Stevus gets his revenge and Chant gets his forum members, it's all good.
Eh, whatever.
-
This is what happened...
I posted on the website about their marriage, shortly after I replied to another post in another thread totally unrelated about 15 minutes after I posted about her marriage. Then when I looked to reply to what was said I was deleted. The entire time elapsed from me sending the original reply about marriage their marriage to posting on the other thread was about 15 minutes.
Five minutes later I was banned and they removed the posts they banned me for. The entire time from me posting about the marriage, to posting about the other woman lasted 20 minutes from start to end. I would only find the assessment fair if they said it was for the other post if they left it up. It was conveniently deleted.
But this is silly, it's not about me getting deleted. It's not about FishEaters, but a public scandal that they initiated by the people in question who should have kept quiet and could do damage to souls who read that and get a confused message. People do things which they shouldn't, but when people who run a Catholic forum initiate such discussion it's wrong. Now if they did all this and never exposed the matter than it would be wrong for me to say anything.
-
So, they're not only being "mean" to Vox and me, but to others as well.
They don't care though. As long as Stevus gets his revenge and Chant gets his forum members, it's all good.
Eh, whatever.
It's not revenge. I can forgive Quis for the way he handled things with me, but this issue does need to be resolved in a Catholic manner for the sake of all involved. I pray that it is resolved very soon and that the scandal can go away once and for all.
-
I saw that one member justified having 3 children out of wedlock by saying"didn't vox and quis do that?"
she posted a laughing smilie and a baby smilie with a 3 near it!
Really (http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/show_single_post?pid=32336876&postcount=44)?
-
We've seen our reactions to Vox's lude post, now let's see a typical FE reaction...
I looked up the tags traditional and/or catholic on youporn, and it didn't yield any results.
-
I post this only for the unbelievable nature of what is allowed on FE. Sensitive souls read no further.
Cyracius responds appropriately to GMan's post:
I'm fairly certain any website with "porn" in its name is at least an occasion of sin, my dear friend, regardless of whether the content is ostensibly Catholic.
Domain names can be full of innuendo, but be completely innocent.
Completely safe for work. I couldn't find one with "porn", but you get the picture.
http://www.wintersexpress.com/
http://www.therapistfinder.com
http://www.webone.com/
Unbelievable, just unbelievable.
And Caminus, Luigi, angelofmercy and I are the ones banned.
-
Veritas just asked this question..
Quis... In all sincerity, at what stage of the annulment process are you currently?
-
Cheerleader quickly tries to comes to the rescue trying to shamelessly increase his chances of staying on the forum while marginalizing (shaming) veritas...
I don't think it's necessary to ask that kind of question in public instead of in private message, unless Quis wants to answer it publicly.
-
Do we really need a play-by-play?
Let's just focus on the big picture here. It's too easy to get lost in the details and personalities.
Matthew
-
True. We'll see how it ends up.
-
I post this only for the unbelievable nature of what is allowed on FE. Sensitive souls read no further.
Cyracius responds appropriately to GMan's post:
I'm fairly certain any website with "porn" in its name is at least an occasion of sin, my dear friend, regardless of whether the content is ostensibly Catholic.
Domain names can be full of innuendo, but be completely innocent.
Completely safe for work. I couldn't find one with "porn", but you get the picture.
http://www.wintersexpress.com/
http://www.therapistfinder.com
http://www.webone.com/
Unbelievable, just unbelievable.
And Caminus, Luigi, angelofmercy and I are the ones banned.
It should be noted that those URLs are actually
PenIsland, WinterExpress, TherapistFinder and WebOne.
With that, I am finished.
-
It has always been my impression that this woman "Vox" is emotionally or mentally unstable. And her grasp of Catholic theology and moral philosophy is questionable at best. Then we have a man "Quis" who seems otherwise decent enter into Vox's "world" via internet dating and becomes entangled in her confused world. We have it on record that he supposedly already married one "mentally unstable" woman. It seems fitting that he would find another to settle down with.
In reference to their understanding of annulments and cohabitation, someone should remind them that the first principle of sacramental marriage is that they are to be presumed valid until the contrary judgment by competent authority is rendered. They have usurped this judgment in favor of pursuing their desires of the flesh, injuring children in the meantime. Furthermore, I see that Quis is relying upon the new personalist definition of marriage in the hopes of freeing himself from the bond of a cuмbersome marriage. Poor, foolish souls. This is all very sad.
-
Obviously.
But why in the world would a Traditional Catholic take the time to respond to a poster giving sound advice, by listing and defending a bunch of scandalous double entendre url's?
It's just madness. But this is the type of posting that frequents the board and when the posters are called out for it, the one's calling them out are labeled "mean". :confused1:
Posters like you would call someone out for being "mean" if they pointed out to O'Neill that this is crazy. In fact you just deleted yourself from this board out of some sort of reighteous indignation that I even brought this subject up.
This sort of hypersensitivity to any sort of correction regarding immature, scandalous, inappropriate posts pervades the board. If you try to do good you are crucified while those who perpetrate the behavior then gain victim status and their behavior is relentlessly defended by others.
It's truly the twilight zone...
-
Obviously.
I'm responding to WRC here, by the way, not Caminus.
-
Ok, here's the answer to Veritas...
Per the previous posts, Vox and I feel that none of this is anyone's business past what has already been stated. Because something is stated in public, doesn't make the whole ordeal open to the public. For example, I'm not going to open the Tribunal records for review just because knowledge of the petition is public, and neither would the Church. If you don't feel comfortable with the answer, "It's none of your business", I'm sorry, but that's the answer.
If you feel uncomfortable here, I understand, and there are other forums where you may feel more comfortable and that would love to have you.
-
Ok, Quis tries to get in a petty semantical jab here, directed at me so I must address it.
One last item: someone e-mailed me and asked me where Solimanto admitted he wasn't banned for saying something about the marriage because apparently someone is denying it (not Solimanto, but you can probably guess who).
Here you go:
Quote:
Originally Posted by "MikeSolimanto" on CathInfo
I thought it was more important for people to give you support in changing your life, to give good recommendations on how to do it, and show support that they were happy you understand your situation and that they were there to help lovingly give advice.
Yes, for that I was banned, but that's what I said.
That's all.
I previously quoted Mike as saying, in that same thread:
This is what happened...
I posted on the website about their marriage, shortly after I replied to another post in another thread totally unrelated about 15 minutes after I posted about her marriage. Then when I looked to reply to what was said I was deleted. The entire time elapsed from me sending the original reply about marriage their marriage to posting on the other thread was about 15 minutes.
Five minutes later I was banned and they removed the posts they banned me for. The entire time from me posting about the marriage, to posting about the other woman lasted 20 minutes from start to end. I would only find the assessment fair if they said it was for the other post if they left it up. It was conveniently deleted.
Clearly this is Mike's view on the matter. His saying "for that I was banned", in Quis' quote obviously refers to Vox's official reason for banning him. It sure doesn't mean he agrees that that is the true reason. He couldn't be clearer as to what he sees as the true reason.
Therefore Quis' claim about Mike is disingenuous. This is an example on a small point but know that he uses the same tactics in all arguments including major theological ones. Just ask Caminus.
He then states Mike isn't denying it. :laugh1: Is Mike even commenting on this board anymore? His words are left to speak for themselves and they clearly do.
Again Chant is correct in that he is the master of propaganda.
It really is sad and beyond the pale. Misrepresenting a man's words from '07 to try to win a minor point? Come on now, Quis. It's all simply a distraction from the major point; that Q&V should not live together until annulments are in hand.
-
As for site links to old threads harming third parties Quis linked to the old thread on FE on FE and Chant linked to the one here.
If Quis wants to avoid any third party embarassment on his own thread he can delete or edit posts from that third party. But to try to blame any third party woes on me seems to be a little crazy.
My two cents anyway...
-
Looks like they have created a new forum for discussing the "banned" that is now private and accessible to registered users only!
Looks like we will have to rely on stealth FE posters for any more updates as to whether "the banned" or CathInfo is being slandered behind closed doors. ;)
In any case, God sees. And He doesn't need to register!
-
Looks like they have created a new forum for discussing the "banned" that is now private and accessible to registered users only!
Good idea, IMHO!
-
Yes, I'm sure you enjoyed his presence on Fisheaters -- but just remember, most of us who "left" Fisheaters left because our access to the forum was revoked, usually on a weak excuse or false pretense.
I bet none of those "booted from FE" were booted because they were spamming, cussing, blaspheming, posting porn -- you get the idea. But disagreeing with the mods? That's a different story.
Matthew
-
Welcome to the forum.
To clarify, those things I listed (cussing, posting porn, etc.) were examples of behavior that would merit a banning. I was just mentioning that most "ex-Fisheaters" on here were not banned for any good reason. That's all.
On another note, I haven't seen Stevus on here for days.
Matthew
-
Well, there's certainly plenty of slander and detraction around here for everyone to see. No need to get it elsewhere!
There is one significant difference, though, I think: over here they don't make any pretensions. Over there the Forum Owner has stated many times he had no desire for a forum war. He broke his own word. He damaged his own credibility--espicially in making public his home situation. NOTHING needed be said. Noone can claim the moral high road in this debacle.
How so, what is going on with domestic situation???
-
Glad I found you. You seem to be posting here and not on AQ any longer.
If you're really looking for Stevus, I'd check Incorruptibles. I think he only used this board to vent. He hasn't posted here since he finished his venting about his FE situation.
-
Belloc,
Apparently Quis and Vox made public their intention to marry a few years ago even though they were both married to other people at the time (and I beileve still are). It is really a sad situation and one that they continually publicly justify to the scandal of many. We must continue to pray for them.
After their initial "revealing" of the situation resulting in many posters at the time being banned/ leaving, they have been silent about it, though the situation has not changed. I'd say a vast majority of posters have no idea that the authors/ owners of the site, espousing "Traditional Catholicism" are themselves in an irregular marital situation with kids involved. It really is a scandal and sad for all involved.
What makes matters worse is the lack of any realization of the gravity of the situation from those involved. They simply go about spending hours of time running a "Catholic" website when their own house is falling apart. Doesn't scripture say something about taking the plank out of one's own eye before removing the splinter of one's neighbor?
In order to run an internet apostolate that bears fruit, one must take care of one's own soul first and foremost. No matter how much you've studied Tradition, no matter how many books and encyclicals you've pored over, no matter how many discussions you've learned from, if your soul is not right, you are open to influences from the devil and to stray from the path.
Being separated from the events on FE for some time, and all of the boards in general I've gained some perspective. What you really have on FE is confusion and that's where the board had its problems, and from what Scipio tells me, is still having problems. Most of the posters there could not even define Traditional Catholicism. All sorts of Traditional liturgical practices were up for grabs there. They seemingly agreed on the TLM, but with the options they threw out, the TLM may as well have been the same experimental playground of the NO. They basically wanted to reshape the TLM in their own image.
The liberality of their liturgical views really mirrored the liberality of their moral views. Many members had made concessions with the world, considering listening to hard rock, metal as a-ok, cursing is ok, immodest dress is a matter of opinion, talk about sex is ok "we don't want to be prudes", etc.
Knowing now the irregular moral situation of the owners, it makes sense. This sort of intellectual liberalism was encouraged, even if perhaps subconsciously while any viewpoints which pricked their consciences were stamped out and reacted to.
I really think that until the owners change their hearts and realize that they need to take care of their situation for the sake of their souls, their children, their families, etc. the sad state of the site will continue, leading many innocent souls into more and more confusion and ultimately a rejection of Catholicism because of it.
God can only bless endeavors taken in truth and humility. The owners have chosen to harden their hearts to their own situation and it is skewing everything they do. Because of this God cannot bless their work. We should all pray for the site owners, because until they change their hearts the board is simply broken.
As for me, I'm pretty much retired from the discussion board business and it has been a blessing. Scipio found me off-line and thus I found this thread. Otherwise I've concentrated on my spiritual life and real world concerns and it has profited me greatly. There are still some quality Catholic boards out there, but I'd be careful about spending too much time even on them. The world and the Church move on no matter how many microns we spend discussiong them in cyber space. Better to get out there and put your faith in action.
In any case, all the best to Scipio and Chant, etc. and God Bless you all!
StevusMagnus
-
I agree with much of what you said...but I'm confused about one thing.
"scipio found me offline, and thus I found this thread"
Does that mean you only found this thread because scipio told you about it?
Because -- I hate to break it to you -- you STARTED this thread, friend! :laugh1:
Matthew
-
Chant,
Yes, correct, I did start this thread! Haha. ;)
I meant, that after months Scipio messaged me and thus I found the thread again as a result.
Hope you are doing well, Chant!
-
You were abscent for a long time. Happy that you are back. :applause:
-
I will answer you:
a fisheater is a trad just for TLM, but is a modernist in all other things. If a fisheater is married, you will hear him/her speaking about her wonderfull *** all the time, not to mention diappers, and divorce! gluttony, vanity and femminism are so common there. And if tell them to be more modest and moderate, you are accused of insulting a sacrament. when I came to cathinfo, I couldn't believe that Dawn, and many others are married and that Chant is so young, because when I compared to fisheaters, they seem too modest to be so!
-
Thank you dear. That is one of my main problems with Fisheater's. They can put all the disclaimers up that they want, but, in the end the shall answer for the scandal caused by people (especially the young) reading about what should not be discussed in public. They should have enough sense to know that a warning "not for persons 18 and under" does not keep children from entering porn sites. And, please nobody bother to rush to tell me that the good people are trying to inform and teach those with questions about what happens between a husband and wife. They should say ask your mother, your father or your priest. Our Lady said that more souls go to hell because of lust.
-
Chant,
Yes, correct, I did start this thread! Haha. ;)
I meant, that after months Scipio messaged me and thus I found the thread again as a result.
Hope you are doing well, Chant!
I wondered what happened to your blog.
Good to see you posting here.
-
Tele,
No time to keep up with it anymore. Maybe I'll re-start another one sometime in the future.
Hope you are doing well.
-
I must say, that despite my being here only a few days now, I believe this thread to be a low point for this forum.
I used to be one called "Rex_Tremendae" on the Fisheaters forum, with well over 2,000 posts under my belt - indeed, it can be said that Fisheaters taught me the Faith. Eventually, I deleted my account, myself being under 18 and left on good terms. While I do not support the union of QuisutDeus and VoxClamantis, neither do I revel in frivolous speculation or calumny. And while I do have several issues with the Fisheaters forum (which I do not have with this fine forum), I honestly find this thread to be somewhat ironic - see, there was almost an identical thread on Fisheaters ranting about how Cathinfo was so bad with all the members sucking up to QuisutDeus- similar to what I see here. Again, no offense, I love this forum, but I see this as unnecessary and perhaps an occasion of sin for some of the members here.
-
I will answer you:
a fisheater is a trad just for TLM, but is a modernist in all other things. If a fisheater is married, you will hear him/her speaking about her wonderfull *** all the time, not to mention diappers, and divorce! gluttony, vanity and femminism are so common there. And if tell them to be more modest and moderate, you are accused of insulting a sacrament. when I came to cathinfo, I couldn't believe that Dawn, and many others are married and that Chant is so young, because when I compared to fisheaters, they seem too modest to be so!
Yes, you're exactly right about Fish Eaters.
Right now they're downrating me for standing up for the proposition that a wife has a duty to make her husband a sandwich if he asks.
-
Really? I do that for my husband all the time. I also set up his coffee, make certain that his clothes are clean (I do not set them out for him.) I line up his vitamins.
Fisheaters must forget that you do those things for Jesus when you do them for your spouse. That explains alot right there.
-
Really? I do that for my husband all the time. I also set up his coffee, make certain that his clothes are clean (I do not set them out for him.) I line up his vitamins.
Fisheaters must forget that you do those things for Jesus when you do them for your spouse. That explains alot right there.
Hmmm. True.
And the corollary is: husbands are asking Jesus to make them a sandwich...
-
Hmmm. True.
And the corollary is: husbands are asking Jesus to make them a sandwich...
Give us this day our daily bread. Yes, we do ask for God to provide our sustenance.
Fish Eaters don't believe a wife should obey her husband, or at least are unwilling to admit a single concrete example.
-
Nonsense. The wife is making the sandwich for another human, in this instance her husband, out of her love for Jesus.
Everything I do in my home life is out of love for Jesus. Cleaning my house, teaching my children, all of the food I prepare. As a Catholic Woman, my love for Jesus is what helps me deal with everything that occurs in a day. We make a morning offering that all of our thoughts and actions are to be offered to Jesus. Yes, even making a sandwich when a husband asks. Problem here folks is modernism. Women tody have a false sense of self, which manisfests itself in selfishness. I have known stay at home moms who, when the husband is done with his work day, declares that her job is finished and he can take over with the house and children. She needs "downtime." Nonsense. She needs to re-order her life and put God first, husband next and then children.
-
Nonsense. The wife is making the sandwich for another human, in this instance her husband, out of her love for Jesus.
Everything I do in my home life is out of love for Jesus. Cleaning my house, teaching my children, all of the food I prepare. As a Catholic Woman, my love for Jesus is what helps me deal with everything that occurs in a day. We make a morning offering that all of our thoughts and actions are to be offered to Jesus. Yes, even making a sandwich when a husband asks. Problem here folks is modernism. Women tody have a false sense of self, which manisfests itself in selfishness. I have known stay at home moms who, when the husband is done with his work day, declares that her job is finished and he can take over with the house and children. She needs "downtime." Nonsense. She needs to re-order her life and put God first, husband next and then children.
Of course. But it cuts both ways, doesn't it? The husband is not exempt from the requirement to be unselfish.
Not that I am saying it is selfish to ask for a sandwich, but it might be in certain circuмstances.
-
Of course. But it cuts both ways, doesn't it? The husband is not exempt from the requirement to be unselfish.
Not that I am saying it is selfish to ask for a sandwich, but it might be in certain circuмstances.
Of course, one must be kind. But I really can't believe that they find it so extraordinary to believe that a man should be able to expect his wife to make a sandwich for him out of obedience.
It's amazing.
-
All the better to make the sandwich for a selfish husband. More merit there. Obedience, wow now you have opened it up. Modern women hate that word. " I am woman hear me roar" I will kick it up a notch myself. Mouthy, demanding, whiny women give women a bad name.
-
Sandwiches taste much better if a wife makes them, this is a fact. :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat:
-
Chant,
Yes, correct, I did start this thread! Haha. ;)
I meant, that after months Scipio messaged me and thus I found the thread again as a result.
Hope you are doing well, Chant!
I wondered what happened to your blog.
Good to see you posting here.
Blog is back!
Blog (http://www.churchincrisis.wordpress.com)
-
I will answer you:
a fisheater is a trad just for TLM, but is a modernist in all other things. If a fisheater is married, you will hear him/her speaking about her wonderfull *** all the time, not to mention diappers, and divorce! gluttony, vanity and femminism are so common there. And if tell them to be more modest and moderate, you are accused of insulting a sacrament. when I came to cathinfo, I couldn't believe that Dawn, and many others are married and that Chant is so young, because when I compared to fisheaters, they seem too modest to be so!
Yes, you're exactly right about Fish Eaters.
Right now they're downrating me for standing up for the proposition that a wife has a duty to make her husband a sandwich if he asks.
Tele,
I'm shocked! :laugh1:
Did you expect anything less from the feminists and the feminized? They probably believe in the "mutual submission" of JPII. It's whatever floats your boat! You like the TLM? Great? You like the NO? Great? It's I'm ok, you're ok. Unless you happen to be a Traditional Catholic, then it's gloves off!
They basically justify all sorts of nonsense to ease their consciences because they are in the habit of nonsense.
The more distance I get from the place, the more I see what a joke it was and how completely lost 80% of them are.
You'd truly be better off posting at Catholic Answers. I think even they would get this one correct!
-
I agree that FE has very big problems, but as far as sandwiches go, I think that a wife(as long as she is not busy) should make it if he asks just as a husband should make one for his wife if he is making one for himself as well. To me, I have bigger issues with FE.
-
Caraffa,
True. There are much bigger issues there!
-
From the Decree of the Holy Office, May 27, 1886
It is asked:
I. Whether the interpretation is right which is widespread throughout France and even put in print, according to which the judge satisfies the above mentioned condition, who, although a certain marriage is valid in the sight of the Church, ignores that true and unbroken marriage, and applying civil law pronounces that there is ground for divorce, provided he intends in his mind to break only the civil effects and only the civil contract, and provided the terms of the opinion offered consider these alone? In other words, whether an opinion so offered can be said not to be at odds with the divine and ecclesiastical law?
II. After the judge has pronounced that there is ground for divorce, whether the syndic (in French: le maire), intent also upon only the civil effects and the civil contract, as is explained above, can pronounce a divorce, although the marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church.
III. After the divorce has been pronounced, whether the same syndic can again join a spouse who strives to enter into other nuptials in a civil ceremony, although the previous marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church and the other party is living?
The answer is:
In the negative to the first, the second, and the third.
-
Caraffa,
Great find. It really only echoes common Catholic sense.
I wonder how many posters there are over there who have no idea what's going on and how this issue is tainting the site. Not only through its scandal but through the compromised theology and morality that is being enforced from the authorities there.
It is just truly sad. Something so noble, pure, and true as Traditional Catholicism being used as bait to lure the unwary into a cess pool of relativistic morality, pick and choose theology and liturgy, and day to day compromise with evil in the world. It is sick.
Truly, like a fish, Fish Eaters is rotting from the head down.
-
Nonsense. The wife is making the sandwich for another human, in this instance her husband, out of her love for Jesus.
Everything I do in my home life is out of love for Jesus. Cleaning my house, teaching my children, all of the food I prepare. As a Catholic Woman, my love for Jesus is what helps me deal with everything that occurs in a day. We make a morning offering that all of our thoughts and actions are to be offered to Jesus. Yes, even making a sandwich when a husband asks. Problem here folks is modernism. Women tody have a false sense of self, which manisfests itself in selfishness. I have known stay at home moms who, when the husband is done with his work day, declares that her job is finished and he can take over with the house and children. She needs "downtime." Nonsense. She needs to re-order her life and put God first, husband next and then children.
Of course. But it cuts both ways, doesn't it? The husband is not exempt from the requirement to be unselfish.
Not that I am saying it is selfish to ask for a sandwich, but it might be in certain circuмstances.
A sandwich isn't a big issue and has nothing to do with selfishness or unselfishness. in my country women cook everything their husbands want.
and it is really normal.
-
I remember a taxi driver who was a Muslim Iraqi. He said he and his wife were an arranged marriage and they had been married for a long time. Every time he got home after a long night of taxi driving his wife would always have a hot meal waiting for him. He said they were both very happy even though the marriage was arranged.
I know this only has a little to do with the discussion but I came away from the cab ride feeling he was sincere in what he said.
-
Many trads including those on FE, think that west=christianity. they are ready to accept the bare breasted dress of 17th century french women as catholic, while they think that a thick veil makes them Jєωιѕн or moslem! They speak alot about the daily challenge of modesty and how one needs a lot of grace and a deep devotion in order to be able to do the hard job of modesty. They really can't accept that many many women in the world are ten times more modest than them while being deprived of many graces.
"obedience is a hard virtue, it must be acquired by mortification and vigilance" they say. They just don't know that in my country, most of women cook for their husbands, wash their garments and dishes, and nurse them if they are sick.
I don't want to advertise for a false religion (christian women in the ancient eras did these things too) I just wonder why it is easier for them to be obedient, than for modern catholics.
-
Many trads including those on FE, think that west=christianity. they are ready to accept the bare breasted dress of 17th century french women as catholic, while they think that a thick veil makes them Jєωιѕн or moslem! They speak alot about the daily challenge of modesty and how one needs a lot of grace and a deep devotion in order to be able to do the hard job of modesty. They really can't accept that many many women in the world are ten times more modest than them while being deprived of many graces.
"obedience is a hard virtue, it must be acquired by mortification and vigilance" they say. They just don't know that in my country, most of women cook for their husbands, wash their garments and dishes, and nurse them if they are sick.
I don't want to advertise for a false religion (christian women in the ancient eras did these things too) I just wonder why it is easier for them to be obedient, than for modern catholics.
It is very strange, especially to see it among self-described "trads."
And to see such anger at the opposite proposition.
I don't understand how things have gotten to this point.
-
I don't understand how things have gotten to this point.
This post on AQ over a year ago might explain it well.
There is a certain kind of 'traditional' Catholic who accepts the dogmas and the doctrines of the Faith but rejects the disposition and virtues of saintliness that attend them. Br Alexis Bugnolo calls this the 'neo-trad,' and I think he is only brushing upon what Bishop Williamson declaims as 'fiftiesism.' There is a desire, it appears, for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr merely restrained by wholesome niceties derived from Sunday sermons and the catechism; but one's daily business and interaction with the world should not be altered substantially -- the Church is not a cult, after all! I do believe that such attitudes are the bane of the battle for Tradition, like a slow-acting poison to a soldier.
-
Many trads including those on FE, think that west=christianity. they are ready to accept the bare breasted dress of 17th century french women as catholic, while they think that a thick veil makes them Jєωιѕн or moslem! They speak alot about the daily challenge of modesty and how one needs a lot of grace and a deep devotion in order to be able to do the hard job of modesty. They really can't accept that many many women in the world are ten times more modest than them while being deprived of many graces.
"obedience is a hard virtue, it must be acquired by mortification and vigilance" they say. They just don't know that in my country, most of women cook for their husbands, wash their garments and dishes, and nurse them if they are sick.
I don't want to advertise for a false religion (christian women in the ancient eras did these things too) I just wonder why it is easier for them to be obedient, than for modern catholics.
Good point -- what you've touched upon is the fact that people CAN have natural virtues, including good morals, even if they are not in God's friendship (state of grace).
I read of one case where a Catholic man was on a cruise ship. He was on the deck lighting a cigar, and began a conversation with an older man, an agnostic. During the conversation, the agnostic shamed him by telling him that he gave up cigars for an earthly motive -- his health -- while "you, a Christian, can't even give up cigars in honor of your God who you claim to love so much". The man was obviously of the Choleric temperament, because he decided right then and there to give up cigars.
This isn't about the morality of smoking, the point of the story is that non-Catholics -- unbelievers -- practice virtue all the time, even though they have much less motivation to do so. Why shouldn't Catholics excel them in virtue, since they have even more motivation to do so? Catholics actually merit a higher place in heaven when they do good works in the state of grace. A non-Catholic merely makes his life easier.
That's an interesting point though, Spouse. Americans have a hard time with obedience, so they make a huge deal out of it. Other cultures don't have nearly as difficult a time with it. As I always say, different races and cultures have different strengths and weaknesses.
Matthew
-
... the point of the story is that non-Catholics -- unbelievers -- practice virtue all the time, even though they have much less motivation to do so. Why shouldn't Catholics excel them in virtue, since they have even more motivation to do so?...
The way I see it is that virtuous non-Catholics would be even better if they were Catholic: and bad Catholics would be even worse if they weren't Catholic.
-
lol - still getting downrated at Fish Eaters after not having posted for days.
As is the young lady who supported my position.
Sad. I'm very sorry I ever recommended that site.
-
Wow, this thread is the first I've ever heard of the forum owners of FE doing that sort of thing. I'm truly shocked. I'm thinking that I should delete my account, but I could also stay on and stick it out til I get banned.
It's almost like being a martyr, only not really lol.
-
lol - still getting downrated at Fish Eaters after not having posted for days.
As is the young lady who supported my position.
Sad. I'm very sorry I ever recommended that site.
Haha. Telesphorus, did I not call it a while back that you would be guillotined eventually? Columba and Scipio were on borrowed time when I was there.
It is truly a sign of orthodoxy. If you are an orthodox Trad you will soon be sniffed out and eventually axed. Why? Because you will continually prick their Neo-Trad secular, liberal, consciences until it is just too intolerable for them.
What is this "downrating"? The mods new way of trying to diminish your credibility by plastering their disapproval ratings next to your name? Haha!
But when you think about it, do we really expect those who can't figure out it's not Catholic to leave your spouse and get civilly married to your net flame, to recognize Catholicism? Are these truly people we want to be moderating a Traditional Catholic website and determining orthodoxy through their "downratings"?
The site is truly rotting from the head down. There will soon be nothing but Neo-Trads left patting each other on the back for their "tolerance" and encouraging each other in their devolution of any Catholic sense.
It truly is a tragedy. Morally they have an obligation to stop calling the forum Catholic and shut it down as it is a continual harm to souls. As I said before, it is rotting from the head down, just like a fish. The stench is overwhelming.
In the end I was banned for sticking up for confessions on Ash Wednesday. Haha. That was the "straw" that broke the Neo-Trad's back! Even Mike Searson, who left a while back wrote me, not believing it. It should truly tell you something.
Eventually you will be canned over something simple that should be a no-brainer for all Trads. Holding the "insane" opinion that wives should make their husbands sandwiches has already got you downrated. It's just a matter of time.
Spouse went on there and called the forum owners out on their public scandal and was immediately banned, to her credit. Most of the posters there are like the prophets for hire in the OT who told the king what he wanted to hear to remain in his good graces. The real prophets were meanwhile persecuted endlessly, treated like pariahs, and eventually killed. Be proud.
-
Haha. Telesphorus, did I not call it a while back that you would be guillotined eventually? Columba and Scipio were on borrowed time when I was there.
I'm still there.
What is this "downrating"? The mods new way of trying to diminish your credibility by plastering their disapproval ratings next to your name? Haha!
Yes, well, after a certain point, it starts to backfire on them.
Well Stevus, while the site has a lot of problems, it has a large audience.
I suppose it's hard to know what the right strategy is.
Not to knock chant's site - but I hope someone will start another forum with a good core of posters who have the real Catholic sense. Angelqueen is good, but more alternatives are always good, provided people can find them and keep them active.
-
You are still there...for now. "Downrated" 60 points in the last 5 days for defending Catholic truth? And this is a desirable site to post on?
Quantity does not mean quality as you well know. If quantity is your goal, you'd do more of a service preaching true Catholicism on Catholic Answers where at least most of the posters are sincere instead of frauds.
-
You are still there...for now. "Downrated" 60 points in the last 5 days for defending Catholic truth? And this is a desirable site to post on?
Quantity does not mean quality as you well know. If quantity is your goal, you'd do more of a service preaching true Catholicism on Catholic Answers where at least most of the posters are sincere instead of frauds.
I'm pretty sure I would be banned at Catholic Answers pronto.
-
I don't think so. You are a well mannered poster. Catholic Answers posters still believe in Traditional morality and piety. They are simply not educated to a great extent on the Society's legal status questions.
Where Catholic Answers folks would debate substance with you, the Neo-Trads would simply personally attack you to try to silence you out of hatred and their guilty conscience. It is a paradox, but one I've found to be true.
-
I'm beginning to see more and more that Neo-Trads are truly liberals clothed in Traditional trappings. Neo-Catholics are not Traditional, but are much closer to Trads in their morality and personal piety. Yes, they have the obedience issue wrong, but are sincere. Neo-Trads, in contrast are an insincere, conflicted, and dangerous lot.
-
Haha. Telesphorus, did I not call it a while back that you would be guillotined eventually? Columba and Scipio were on borrowed time when I was there.
I'm still there.
What is this "downrating"? The mods new way of trying to diminish your credibility by plastering their disapproval ratings next to your name? Haha!
Yes, well, after a certain point, it starts to backfire on them.
Well Stevus, while the site has a lot of problems, it has a large audience.
I suppose it's hard to know what the right strategy is.
Not to knock chant's site - but I hope someone will start another forum with a good core of posters who have the real Catholic sense. Angelqueen is good, but more alternatives are always good, provided people can find them and keep them active.
The sad truth is that the "majority" of people can't handle the truth -- don't want the truth. It bothers them; it pricks at their conscience.
If CathInfo is to stay a forum full of sincere Catholics interested in the truth, it will never have as many members as Fisheaters. That's something I accepted long ago.
However, on the plus side, I haven't had to "prime the pump" here for a LONG time (that is, posting news stories to keep a steady flow of new posts). It's about as busy as FE was a few years ago. There are always several users online, day and night, and plenty of unregistered guests perusing the site at all times. There are plenty of posts to keep up with -- almost too many if you have much of a life!
So it's a very popular forum, even if it's still a bit more "quality" than "quantity".
Matthew
-
I'm beginning to see more and more that Neo-Trads are truly liberals clothed in Traditional trappings. Neo-Catholics are not Traditional, but are much closer to Trads in their morality and personal piety. Yes, they have the obedience issue wrong, but are sincere. Neo-Trads, in contrast are an insincere, conflicted, and dangerous lot.
There is truth in that. While the Neo-Catholic higher-ups like Keating, West, Akin, Shea, and Hahn know what they're doing, many Neo-Catholics are ignorant, but not necessarily immoral. If they would only wake up and see the abuses and questionable practices that go on at their own NO masses, as well as Modernism the corrupts the Church today. Occasionally I have listened to EWTN radio and just last week a woman called in about St. Pio not being a big fan of pants. The EWTN respondent(I think it was Pat Madrid), stated that it wouldn't be a bad idea to take Padre Pio's advice since he was much holier and closer to Christ than most of us. Hmm, how interesting I thought.
Fisheaters originally started as a way to reach out to Neo-Catholics and show them the way, instead the Trads just became Neo-Caths(Trads). I guess they were trying to "meet them half way."
-
Given the scandals that go on at FE, I can't help but think of Quis and Vox as the Traditional Catholic version of the Tel-evangelists:
(http://illicitohio.com/SBNO/heritage/otherpics/theplayers.jpg)
Just think about it:
Asking/Begging for money
Immorality behind the scenes
Marriage/Divorce scandals
Questionable audience
Defense of bad practices
Bad theology
People walking away, sensing that something isn't right.
Given their love for animals I think the above picture fits them well.
-
Caraffa,
Many Neo-Caths actually hate the liturgical abuses but fail to do anything (or are held powerless) because out of obedience they keep attending the Masses and their protests are ignored by the liberal authorities. They like Masses by the book, and thus, if they became Trads, they would want the TLM "by the book".
The Neo-Trads, being liberals, prefer the TLM because they are rebels. They want to go against the mainstream to be different, but inside they are liberals. They want to experiment with the TLM, incorporate certain new elements stating that they were used in the past (communion under both kinds, etc) and play around with it, relax and ignore dress codes, play around with the music, etc.
If we really want to make good Trads we should try to convert some of these Neo-Caths over. The Neo-Trads are a lost cause and truly belong with the libs at the puppet masses, but they are too proud and desirous of attention to join them.
-
Caraffa,
LOL! That was awesome. Thanks for my laugh today. It's so funny because it's so true! ;)
-
I am planning on starting my own forum in the future ( a few years). I would be the only moderator of course, in line with the monarchist principals of our Faith, but I would only ban someone for blasphemy or persistent bad will/heresy.
-
Vox is either very dense, or is pretending to be.
There is a big difference between a PUBLIC sin, and a private one.
When you're living together but not married, that's a public scandal. It's not like most peoples' sins which are usually private.
If Vox wanted to live in peace and not be critiqued, she shouldn't have voluntarily stepped into the limelight by running one of the largest Catholic fora on the Internet.
Sorry, Vox, but leaders are judged differently than commoners. They are held up as examples, and when they fall short, it's more visible (and dangerous!)
Moreover, if I didn't speak out about a public scandal, I would be guilty myself. Yet if Vox was my next-door neighbor, who no one knew, I would be gravely sinning by spreading around news of her sin.
But in this case, it's Vox and Quis themselves that made it public knowledge, and it forces good Catholics to distance themselves from approval of their actions -- lest innocent Catholics be scandalized.
Matthew
True, they are all over, yet allow attacks on Trad Catholic thinking..after joining this forum, I went back there and though there are meany good epople there, I have continously been attacked for sticking up for an all-encompassing Catholicworld view, this includes rejected modern economics, war, politics,e tc.....for taht I have around a -61 fishie...
what is a fishie, it is a popularity contest where people can give you, 1 per hour, a atta boy or a negative rating......Have complained it is inane and childish, was told to ignore it or suck it up, like I wa a nut....
-
As if popularity has ANYTHING to do with the truth.
If anything, the truth is NOT popular. Usually whatever most people want is not good for them.
Bill Clinton was popular. Obama is popular. Michael Jackson is/was popular. Television is popular. Soda is popular. Materialism is popular.
Need I say more?
-
True, they are all over, yet allow attacks on Trad Catholic thinking..after joining this forum, I went back there and though there are meany good epople there, I have continously been attacked for sticking up for an all-encompassing Catholicworld view, this includes rejected modern economics, war, politics,e tc.....for taht I have around a -61 fishie...
what is a fishie, it is a popularity contest where people can give you, 1 per hour, a atta boy or a negative rating......Have complained it is inane and childish, was told to ignore it or suck it up, like I wa a nut....
Find the poster there with the worst "fishie" score and I'll show you a true Catholic! Haha. ;)
-
You'all are so good at making FE sound so inviting.
I've never signed onto their forum, and I don't know anything about them. So they're feminists and liberals or something?
-
You'all are so good at making FE sound so inviting.
I've never signed onto their forum, and I don't know anything about them. So they're feminists and liberals or something?
No, I would put it as a mix of traditional Catholics and worldlings.
-
Personally I don't have much against the Fisheaters forum or the posters there, but I must admit some of the posters there are quite humorous (not intentionally I think!). :)
-
The Impediment of Crime (http://books.google.com/books?id=eb8qAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA206&dq=impediment+of+crime&hl=en&ei=shh7TK_gLYernQeF1-CWCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=impediment%20of%20crime&f=false)