Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Computers, Technology, Websites => Topic started by: Matto on October 18, 2021, 02:36:02 PM
-
Sensus Fidelium was just banned from Youtube. No reason given. He's on some other youtube alternatives. I followed him on Bitchute.
-
Sounds vaguely familiar.
-
His channel was popluar with hundreds of thousand subscribers. He posted lots of sermons and conferences mostly from an indult perspective. And other videos about religion.
-
He should of left a long time ago.
-
They have not banned the Dimond's and MHFM, they go by Vatican Catholic on YouTube, and they are hardball, no nonsense Catholic, so this Sensus Fidelium likely has not been banned for content.
-
Update. Now the channel is "suspended" but back online. So you can watch the videos, but there is some problem with youtube. I don't know all the rules and what exactly "suspended" means.
-
I watch his stuff on Bitchute anyway. What Catholics Believe got a strike a month ago, so their program is on their website now, but they still stream masses on YT.
https://wcbohio.com/videos/what-catholics-believe
-
His channel was popluar with hundreds of thousand subscribers. He posted lots of sermons and conferences mostly from an indult perspective. And other videos about religion.
No, dingleberry, from a Catholic perspective.
-
They have not banned the Dimond's and MHFM, they go by Vatican Catholic on YouTube, and they are hardball, no nonsense Catholic, so this Sensus Fidelium likely has not been banned for content.
Perhaps because the Dimonds have far less credibility? Maybe they're afraid of someone who people will actually listen to?
-
No, dingleberry, from a Catholic perspective.
Not entirely so Spork. The indult perspective is polluted with the idea that "The new rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the old rite of Mass" as Fr. Ripperger puts it, which is to say that that idea is ever present albeit underlying in the indult perspective, poster XavierSem is a good example of this perspective imo.
-
Sensus Fidelium is back up as of this morning on YT.
You can always find Steve's videos on other platforms like Bitchute and Odysee though.
-
Not entirely so Spork. The indult perspective is polluted with the idea that "The new rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the old rite of Mass" as Fr. Ripperger puts it, which is to say that that idea is ever present albeit underlying in the indult perspective, poster XavierSem is a good example of this perspective imo.
Oh, shut up, twit. Seriously. That is not true and you know.
your idea of Catholicism doesn't deliver and has left me less than impressed. Get over yourself and this stupid attitude.You want a mRNA vaccine with that SSPX to go? Or are you now a the ultra strict über walking on water resistance? One of the various sede groups that don't even recognise each other's validity? Tell me, what's your flavour of Church?
-
Tell me, what's your flavour of Church?
One that doesn't deny the Crisis in the Church for starters.
The Indult, by definition, denies that there is a severe Crisis in the Church that started with Vatican II. It also denies that the Freemasons infiltrated and took over the Church at that time (despite the uncanny resemblance of the new post-Vatican II Conciliar Church to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ -- ceremonies, doctrine, morality, attitudes, etc... go figure)
The Indult and approved-by-Rome groups teach that Vatican II was "never truly implemented" and that we need "a reform of the reform".
Traditional Catholics say that "Vatican II must be destroyed" a.k.a. thrown in the dustbin of history. Not part of it, not 5% of it -- ALL of it. Vatican II defined no new doctrines, after all. Traditional Catholics also insist that there was a conspiracy to infiltrate the Catholic Church and replace its teachings with Freemasonic doctrines, practices, ceremonies, and sensibilities. All of which we've seen implemented after the Council. Hmm...
Any groups that are "approved" by the Modernist Conciliar Church (established 1965) are obviously problematic. Compromised doesn't begin to describe them.
-
Oh, shut up, twit. Seriously. That is not true and you know.
your idea of Catholicism doesn't deliver and has left me less than impressed. Get over yourself and this stupid attitude.You want a mRNA vaccine with that SSPX to go? Or are you now a the ultra strict über walking on water resistance? One of the various sede groups that don't even recognise each other's validity? Tell me, what's your flavour of Church?
Thanks for defending me, great post!
(https://popesup.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/125904_popefrancisthumbs_up1.jpg)
They have not banned the Dimond's and MHFM, they go by Vatican Catholic on YouTube, and they are hardball, no nonsense Catholic, so this Sensus Fidelium likely has not been banned for content.
It could be that Ripperberger connection. Barron and the likes are YouTube verified so there could be some backroom dealings. MHFM does have the best Catholic content on YouTube though, it's 100% uncompromising.
-
One that doesn't deny the Crisis in the Church for starters.
The Indult, by definition, denies that there is a severe Crisis in the Church that started with Vatican II. It also denies that the Freemasons infiltrated and took over the Church at that time (despite the uncanny resemblance of the new post-Vatican II Conciliar Church to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ -- ceremonies, doctrine, morality, attitudes, etc... go figure)
The Indult and approved-by-Rome groups teach that Vatican II was "never truly implemented" and that we need "a reform of the reform".
Traditional Catholics say that "Vatican II must be destroyed" a.k.a. thrown in the dustbin of history. Not part of it, not 5% of it -- ALL of it. Vatican II defined no new doctrines, after all. Traditional Catholics also insist that there was a conspiracy to infiltrate the Catholic Church and replace its teachings with Freemasonic doctrines, practices, ceremonies, and sensibilities. All of which we've seen implemented after the Council. Hmm...
Any groups that are "approved" by the Modernist Conciliar Church (established 1965) are obviously problematic. Compromised doesn't begin to describe them.
I just reported you to admin for spewing falsehoods.
-
I just reported you to admin for spewing falsehoods.
Did you miss your clown or balloon "mass" indulter? Why so mad?
-
Perhaps because the Dimonds have far less credibility? Maybe they're afraid of someone who people will actually listen to?
The Dimond do have good content, but if they feel so strongly about the Church, they could organise themselves as proper monks, perhaps get ordained by someone traditional, but instead they just churn out videos from their farm in rural New York, and don't even live properly as monks, it has been said.
Yes, there is the issue of credibility and Youtube evidence consider them fringe cranks.
Back again
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJaR9cU_0zM)This latest video is presumably on the words of St Alphonsus Liguori. I'll make sure to download it.
-
I just reported you to admin for spewing falsehoods.
You can't be that stupid, you have to be joking.
Then again, you DID just sh** on all Trad groups, clinging only to the Indult as your favorite out of all the possible options. The compromised, controlled opposition Indult! Approved by Modernist Rome authorities and Pope Francis. What danger could such a group be to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr? ZERO.
I'll give you a clue, Einstein: when the evil Galactic Empire (the bad guys in Star Wars) allows a group to exist, that group is obviously NOT going to take down the evil Empire, or do anything to interfere with Imperial ambitions. Any true "rebel" groups will certainly be attacked by the Empire, and most certainly will NOT be approved by it!
If you were in the Star Wars universe, you'd be proudly clinging to a compromised pseudo-rebel group set up by the Empire and Darth Vader himself, while attacking, denigrating, and betraying the real Rebellion at every turn. And Darth Vader would be laughing at idiots like you, who fell for it!
You, man, are A) woefully uneducated about the Crisis in the Church, B) dull of mind, C) have some personal "need" to be accepted by the world that causes you to need/want compromise, or D) some combination of A/B/C.
I'd like to know which of those you are -- but it really doesn't matter.
-
The Dimond do have good content, but if they feel so strongly about the Church, they could organise themselves as proper monks, perhaps get ordained by someone traditional, but instead they just churn out videos from their farm in rural New York, and don't even live properly as monks, it has been said.
Yes, there is the issue of credibility and Youtube evidence consider them fringe cranks.
Back again
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJaR9cU_0zM)This latest video is presumably on the words of St Alphonsus Liguori. I'll make sure to download it.
They do a nice job indeed, in spite of their apologetical problems. I have Creation and Miracles in our homeschool video library. I have some of their material and it is very well-done, they do write well (as does RJMI, but I'm not about to follow him either), and somebody in the MHFM apparatus seems to have had some schooling and/or OJT in editing, layout, and design (as have I, much self-taught, you can do wonders with Microsoft Publisher).
I'm not about to become a Dimondite, but I must give credit where credit is due, WRT their editing and writing skills.
-
I'll give you a clue, Einstein: when the evil Galactic Empire (the bad guys in Star Wars) allows a group to exist, that group is obviously NOT going to take down the evil Empire, or do anything to interfere with Imperial ambitions. Any true "rebel" groups will certainly be attacked by the Empire, and most certainly will NOT be approved by it!
If you were in the Star Wars universe, you'd be proudly clinging to a compromised pseudo-rebel group set up by the Empire and Darth Vader himself, while attacking, denigrating, and betraying the real Rebellion at every turn. And Darth Vader would be laughing at idiots like you, who fell for it!
:laugh1: The force is strong in this analogy!
-
Not entirely so Spork. The indult perspective is polluted with the idea that "The new rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the old rite of Mass" as Fr. Ripperger puts it, which is to say that that idea is ever present albeit underlying in the indult perspective, poster XavierSem is a good example of this perspective imo.
Stubborn,
I don't believe XavierSem would hold to that "just as efficacious." And, as the recipient can determine in part "how much grace is imparted," I guess sources can impart grace while imparting more or less grace than another source - hence, not "just as efficacious."
-
Stubborn,
I don't believe XavierSem would hold to that "just as efficacious." And, as the recipient can determine in part "how much grace is imparted," I guess sources can impart grace while imparting more or less grace than another source - hence, not "just as efficacious."
This is something I'd actually like clarification from him on. I've seen him say the NOM has defects but that it is valid, which seems to imply what Stubborn is saying. Why would he say in multiple threads it's fine to fulfill your Sunday obligation in something inferior? Is there a "preferred way" through official channels in the VII church and a "lesser way"? If this is the case he is undermining himself.
-
But yet this video of hate against Christians and our Lord is allowed by YouTube. Where is the outrage by Christians?
(got complaints about video -- moderator removed link)
-
Stubborn,
I don't believe XavierSem would hold to that "just as efficacious." And, as the recipient can determine in part "how much grace is imparted," I guess sources can impart grace while imparting more or less grace than another source - hence, not "just as efficacious."
Well, Fr. Ripperger states this in the Introduction of his book "The Merit of a Mass" (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Merit of the Mass (Fr. Ripperger, F.S.S.P.).pdf): "The new rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the old rite of Mass in this respect since they are both the same sacrifice of Christ."
After quoting some theologian about a week ago, XavierSem said: "Therefore, the New Mass cannot be intrinsically evil in the way that a Black Mass is, because the Church cannot poison Her children".
The thinking here is that the new "mass" is not evil because coming from the Church, it can't be evil. Whether he thinks it "just as efficacious" or not I cannot say, but either way, his thinking exemplifies that one does not necessarily need to believe as Fr. Ripperger that "it's just as efficacious," that apparently all one needs to do is accept is that the evil thing came from the Church, which means rather than being evil it is acceptable, and since it's acceptable it gives graces same as the true Mass. Which in turn, this thinking leads to other liberal ideas that come across in the writings and sermons etc. of indulters. Matto correctly called this "the indult perspective."
-
Oh, shut up, twit. Seriously. That is not true and you know.
your idea of Catholicism doesn't deliver and has left me less than impressed. Get over yourself and this stupid attitude.You want a mRNA vaccine with that SSPX to go? Or are you now a the ultra strict über walking on water resistance? One of the various sede groups that don't even recognise each other's validity? Tell me, what's your flavour of Church?
Fauci didn't warn me about the Indult Variant, might have to report this sickness to the CDC instead of Matthew.
-
I have to say this, the video of the practically-naked young woman crucifying the monkey, could be a proximate temptation to sin (even if only mental) of impurity, for a young man who is struggling to live chastely. I'm 61 years old and, just suffice it to say, she even got my attention.
Might want to edit this out, or at least provide the URL without a hyperlink, and with a warning that she is immodestly dressed (undressed would be more like it) in the extreme.
-
I have to say this, the video of the practically-naked young woman crucifying the monkey, could be a proximate temptation to sin (even if only mental) of impurity, for a young man who is struggling to live chastely. I'm 61 years old and, just suffice it to say, she even got my attention.
Might want to edit this out, or at least provide the URL without a hyperlink, and with a warning that she is immodestly dressed (undressed would be more like it) in the extreme.
I agree why on earth would someone post this? I dont care what the content is; You just posted a picture of an almost naked woman, why would any catholic do that? Promotion of gross immodesty is a grave sin.
-
I agree why on earth would someone post this? I dont care what the content is; You just posted a picture of an almost naked woman, why would any catholic do that? Promotion of gross immodesty is a grave sin.
I removed the link in VCR's post, after receiving complaints.
-
I agree why on earth would someone post this? I dont care what the content is; You just posted a picture of an almost naked woman, why would any catholic do that? Promotion of gross immodesty is a grave sin.
Matthew deleted it. What did he post? A picture of the Sistine Chapel?
-
I removed the link in VCR's post, after receiving complaints.
Thanks. No offense intended, but I couldn't just let that go, without saying something.
Now the trick is to be like the old monk in the anecdote about carrying the woman across the water, when he told the young monk, "I put her down a half-hour ago, but you are still carrying her".
Might be good to reflect upon the outrage she perpetrated upon the crucified Christ.
-
Matthew deleted it. What did he post? A picture of the Sistine Chapel?
A Jєωιѕн girl on Israeli TV in extreme deshabille crucifying a puppet monkey. Beyond vile. The blasphemy was far worse than the immodesty.
-
Reminds me of the music video for "Heart-Shaped Box" by Nirvana they used to play on MTV when I was a kid.