Author Topic: List of good websites (Read 31607 times)

soulguard · « **on:** February 26, 2014, 04:18:07 PM »

Post links to good educational websites and a description of what is to be found there.

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2014, 05:18:46 PM »

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/
The Novus Ordo Watch newswire. Catholic Commentary on the Theological & Moral Aberrations of the Modernist Vatican II Sect

http://www.ecclesia.luxvera.org/Directory-USA.html
Traditional Mass Directory

http://sedevacantist.com/forums/
Saint Belarmine Forum: Sedevacantist forum run by Mr. John Lane

http://sedevacantist.com/
The main website for above. Information concerning the Crisis in the Church.

http://www.cmri.org/
The website for the CMRI. Includes Mass information and links to schools and an online store.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio
Online radio shows featuring a variety of shows of Catholic interest. Shows are archived and can be downloaded for free.

http://www.isoc.ws/
"In the Spirit of Chartres" Committee. Features interviews of notable Catholic personalities who present a wide variety of information of Catholic interest.

SenzaDubbio · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2014, 07:17:31 PM »

http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org/

A great free archive of audio sermons & audiobooks. Under Fr. Benedict is the whole Baltimore Catechism in sermons.

Thorn · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2014, 08:48:31 PM »

Well, that was interesting!
According to the LuxVera directory, Fr. Bernard G. Hall is saying Mass in Monroe CT?! He says Mass in England AND CT.?! That must be quite an expense! Wasn't that chapel CMRI? I'm really behind the times.
Also, don't they know Marshall Roberts history?! Why on earth is he listed for a chapel in Fl.?

LuxVera has sure changed since the last time I looked them up!

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2014, 09:06:06 PM »

I've found a lot of interesting perspectives at http://www.traditio.com, particularly their Library of Files (FAQs and Traditional Apologetics), though to be honest, I wish they were organized a tad better. The FAQs are in old Usenet text format.

I prefer to use a DuckDuckGo bang search (eg, go to www.DuckDuckGo.com and type "relics of St. Philomena !traditio.com" (the exclamation point is a "bang" which searches just that site for that exact phrase) to find information on Traditio.

I find those old text files are a far less "sarcastic" and bitter than the commentaries on Traditio. I really like that resource a lot.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2014, 03:58:15 PM »

http://TraditionalCatholic.net
Catholic Resources

Mabel · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2014, 09:13:14 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

http://TraditionalCatholic.net
Catholic Resources

That site is excellent, I've enjoyed it and used it as reference for a good many years, thank you.

VinnyF · « **Reply #7 on:** March 16, 2014, 02:08:57 PM »

http://TraditionalCatholicRadio.org

24/7 streaming audio of sermons, Mass, conferences, liturgical hours.

shin · « **Reply #8 on:** March 16, 2014, 02:37:45 PM »

Inspirational Quotes from the Saints - learn how to be a saint.

Meditations from the Saints - learn how to meditate from the saints.

Modesty and Purity Resources - learn how to be modest from the saints.

& more.

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #9 on:** April 13, 2014, 05:00:08 PM »

Quote from: TKGS (Feb 26, 2014, 5:18 pm)

http://www.ecclesia.luxvera.org/Directory-USA.html
Traditional Mass Directory

The label "Traditional Mass Directory" is broader than is warranted; as a matter of their policy, Luxvera excludes all traditional churches, chapels, and other "Mass sites" that acknowledge Francis I as the pope (or until a little more than a year ago, acknowledged Benedict XVI as pope). That's "exclude" as in complete omission, instead of simply distinguishing them with icons signifying disapproval vs. approval. Wouldn't Luxvera thus be excluding all "Mass sites" that adhere to Abp. Lefebvre's official position on the Chair of St. Peter?

It seems to me that Luxvera's criteria fall within CathInfo's term dogmatically sedevacantist. Altho' I typically welcome alternative sources of information, and acknowledge that it's Luxvera's right to choose its criteria for its own "Directory", I also believe it's very important for readers to understand who's eligible--and who's ineligible--for inclusion.

TKGS · « **Reply #10 on:** April 13, 2014, 05:45:06 PM »

Quote from: AlligatorDicax

Quote from: TKGS (Feb 26, 2014, 5:18 pm)
http://www.ecclesia.luxvera.org/Directory-USA.html
Traditional Mass Directory

The label "Traditional Mass Directory" is broader than is warranted; as a matter of their policy, Luxvera excludes all traditional churches, chapels, and other "Mass sites" that acknowledge Francis I as the pope (or until a little more than a year ago, acknowledged Benedict XVI as pope). That's "exclude" as in complete omission, instead of simply distinguishing them with icons signifying disapproval vs. approval. Wouldn't Luxvera thus be excluding all "Mass sites" that adhere to Abp. Lefebvre's official position on the Chair of St. Peter?

It seems to me that Luxvera's criteria fall within CathInfo's term dogmatically sedevacantist. Altho' I typically welcome alternative sources of information, and acknowledge that it's Luxvera's right to choose its criteria for its own "Directory", I also believe it's very important for readers to understand who's eligible--and who's ineligible--for inclusion.

The site does not specify any position on the status of non-sedevacantists and, therefore, the site would not fall within CathInfo's term of "dogmatic sedevacantist". The site is, as you say, free to list whom they choose and no one should consider them the only true source.

Dogmatic sedevacantism, which is forbidden on CathInfo, is the declaration that sedevacantism is a dogmatic fact. Of course, the identity of the pope cannot be declared as a dogmatic fact, though people who accept the heresies of the Conciliar claimants of the Chair of Peter are, by that fact, heretics. On the other hand, dogmatic sedeplenism is the declaration that sedevacantists are outside the Church by that reason alone; this is apparently perfectly acceptable to post this view on CathInfo even though they are, by that reason alone, schismatic.

As for the "importance for readers to understand" whom this website includes and excludes in its directory, the website is very, very clear about this. It is at the very top of the webpage and cannot be missed by anyone who can read English. They do not hide the fact.

Since certain Resistance priests have warned the faithful not to attend any SSPX "Mass sties" that adhere to Bishop Fellay, I am wondering if you would consider those priests to be off limits on CathInfo.

P.S. I notice the Dimond's website is routinely referenced on CathInfo in spite of the fact that they have anathematized the whole world except themselves.

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #11 on:** April 14, 2014, 11:15:42 AM »

Quote from: TKGS (Apr 13, 2014, 6:45 pm)

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Apr 13, 2014, 6:00 pm)
Quote from: TKGS (Feb 26, 2014, 5:18 pm)
http://www.ecclesia.luxvera.org/Directory-USA.html Traditional Mass Directory

The label "Traditional Mass Directory" is broader than is warranted; as a matter of their policy, Luxvera excludes all traditional churches, chapels, and other "Mass sites" that acknowledge Francis I as the pope (or until a little more than a year ago, acknowledged Benedict XVI as pope). That's "exclude" as in complete omission [....] It seems to me that Luxvera's criteria fall within CathInfo's term dogmatically sedevacantist.

The site does not specify any position on the status of non-sedevacantists and,
therefore, the site would not fall within CathInfo's term of "dogmatic sedevacantist".

Construed very narrowly, perhaps not. But by contruction, Luxvera clearly expresses the position that any Catholic who is not sedevacantist is not a traditional Catholic.

Quote from: TKGS (Apr 13, 2014, 6:45 pm)

The site is, as you say, free to list whom they choose and no one should consider them the only true source.

If the Luxvera "Directory" were offered under a title that matched its eligibility requirements, e.g.: "Sedevacantist-Catholic Mass Directory", I wouldn't have made an issue of it.

Quote from: TKGS (Apr 13, 2014, 6:45 pm)

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Apr 13, 2014, 6:00 pm)
[...] I also believe it's very important for readers to understand who's eligible--and who's ineligible--for inclusion.

As for the "importance for readers to understand" whom this website includes and excludes in its directory, the website is very, very clear about this. It is at the very top of the webpage and cannot be missed by anyone who can read English. They do not hide the fact.

That's certainly true after readers have actually loaded the Web page. And that is why I used what I thought was plenty charitable phrasing in my initial comment on them (boldface above), instead of using a phrase like "fraudulently titled", which, during my drafting, I rejected as unfair.

I've been using 3rd-person references to Luxvera, i.e.: a more-or-less remote "them". I'm now wondering whether it'd be more accurate to use a 2nd-person reference: "you", 'TKGS' ?

TKGS · « **Reply #12 on:** April 14, 2014, 02:01:48 PM »

Quote from: AlligatorDicax

Construed very narrowly, perhaps not. But by contruction, Luxvera clearly expresses the position that any Catholic who is not sedevacantist is not a traditional Catholic

I'm sorry, please quote what it is on the website that "clearly expresses" this position. I'll help: It's not there.

You may interpret their meaning in that way, but that is not what they say. What you say is "clear" is merely your impression (though, I admit, that I would not be surprised that your interpretation is correct, it is still wrong to say that this is a plain fact for it is not).

I note that the SSPX and the CMRI also have online Mass directories that include only Mass centers governed by the SSPX and CMRI, respectively. The CMRI has officially stated that the faithful can, in good conscience, attend Masses with the SSPX, though the SSPX has never, to my knowledge, said the same with regards to the CMRI. But the exclusion of other Mass centers does not "clearly expresses" that either the SSPX or the CMRI regard Catholics who do not agree with their position on the identity of the pope as being a "traditional Catholic". You seem to be too worried about this entire affair...as if you are a dogmatic sedeplenist.

P.S. My sole contact with this website is that I sent them a correction for the Mass time of a chapel that I attend. I sent the same information to traditio for their directory. I note that Lux Vera made the correction, traditio still provides the incorrect Mass time.

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #13 on:** April 14, 2014, 03:15:41 PM »

Quote from: TKGS (Apr 13, 2014, 6:45 pm)

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Apr 13, 2014, 6:00 pm)
[...] traditional churches, chapels, and other "Mass sites" that acknowledge Francis I as the pope (or until a little more than a year ago, acknowledged Benedict XVI as pope). [....] Wouldn't Luxvera thus be excluding all "Mass sites" that adhere to Abp. Lefebvre's official position on the Chair of St. Peter?

Since certain Resistance priests have warned the faithful not to attend any SSPX "Mass sties" [....]

In responding to my comments, you enclosed a word in double-quotes that in fact, is not how I spelled it.

Was your spelling a transposition error produced by an overly intense typing episode? Or is that a deliberately insulting pun circulating in the Resistance, deliberately transposing "sites" into the plural of "sty"? Hmmm?

Quote from: TKGS (Apr 13, 2014, 6:45 pm, immediately continued)

[...] I am wondering if you would consider those priests to be off limits on CathInfo.

Silly provocateur ! 
Altho' I've missed nearly 1/2 year of postings herein, thus missing 1/2 year of inside info on the Resistance to Fellay, I would be greatly surprised if Matthew were to declare any "Resistance priests [...] off limits on CathInfo".

Perhaps more to the point, and contrary to what I infer from your questions, I  have not  suggested or requested that anyone or anything be declared "off limits on CathInfo".

TKGS · « **Reply #14 on:** April 14, 2014, 04:12:52 PM »

Quote from: AlligatorDicax

In responding to my comments, you enclosed a word in double-quotes that in fact, is not how I spelled it.

My apologies for a typographical error. You are clearly too emotional about this subject to continue in a rational manner. Please add your final comments. I'll give you the last word.