Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Computers, Technology, Websites => Topic started by: Matto on March 03, 2015, 12:31:25 PM
-
I was wondering what posters think about the Catholic forum Suscipe Domine. I have been aware of the site for a while and have considered joining but I do not know if the site is good for a person like me. Is it bad like fisheaters or Catholic answers or is it more traditional?
-
I was wondering what posters think about the Catholic forum Suscipe Domine. I have been aware of the site for a while and have considered joining but I do not know if the site is good for a person like me. Is it bad like fisheaters or Catholic answers or is it more traditional?
I don't go there but checked it out a few months after it started - to me it was too much like FE.
-
I was wondering what posters think about the Catholic forum Suscipe Domine. I have been aware of the site for a while and have considered joining but I do not know if the site is good for a person like me. Is it bad like fisheaters or Catholic answers or is it more traditional?
They calumnate their members (See: https://sbyvl.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/4172/), whilst permitting feminists to roam free, banning those who oppose them (See: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10447.0 and http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10525.0). These are just two examples of their ridiculousness. There are plenty more.
-
I was wondering what posters think about the Catholic forum Suscipe Domine. I have been aware of the site for a while and have considered joining but I do not know if the site is good for a person like me. Is it bad like fisheaters or Catholic answers or is it more traditional?
They calumnate their members (See: https://sbyvl.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/4172/), whilst permitting feminists to roam free, banning those who oppose them (See: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10447.0 and http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10525.0). These are just two examples of their ridiculousness. There are plenty more.
I notice that you have fewer then 10 posts on CI. Have you come here for no other purpose than to continue your war of words with the SD moderators, which you have been waging on your own forum and blog?
-
I was wondering what posters think about the Catholic forum Suscipe Domine. I have been aware of the site for a while and have considered joining but I do not know if the site is good for a person like me. Is it bad like fisheaters or Catholic answers or is it more traditional?
They calumnate their members (See: https://sbyvl.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/4172/), whilst permitting feminists to roam free, banning those who oppose them (See: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10447.0 and http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10525.0). These are just two examples of their ridiculousness. There are plenty more.
I notice that you have fewer then 10 posts on CI. Have you come here for no other purpose than to continue your war of words with the SD moderators, which you have been waging on your own forum and blog?
No, and I would appreciate it if you would not impugne my motives. How would you like it if I dismissed every opinion you expressed before you made X number of posts on CI? Moreover, a member asked for our opinions of Suscipe Domine, and I gave mine, providing citations to support my statement, in order that others may evaluate for themselves the validity thereof.
And finally, I don't know who you are, and since this is the first time we have spoken to each other, wouldn't it be more polite to start with a "Hello", rather than with an accusation?
-
I am investigating SD to see if I want to post there. I found this which is not promising:
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=1181.90 (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=1181.90)
Archer said:
"Petrie has been banned for one day for calling Pope Francis an enemy of God. "
I can't believe this is not allowed. If Francis is not an enemy of God then God has no enemies.
-
Suscipe Domine The Echo Chamber is devolving by the week. It's a shame that so many of the Fisheaters got roped in by them.
I'm willing to bet that the moderators will have some sort of fight within the next three years. It seems they've already pushed out one Moderator, Bonaventure.
I've mentioned them a bit here and there at homebase. I suppose this post, however is a good broad look at how they do things.
http://thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2015/02/echo-chamber-cannibalizes-another-member.html
They continue to foster favorites who suck up to them, they foster trouble makers who create sock puppets in order to create forum wars, and they kick out people for silly little reasons--it's all so disingenuous. The place is sort of like CAF, in that you don't know if the next sensible thing that you say will get you the boot.
I, myself, was banned for talking about evangelizing atheists.
-
A friend emailed me earlier today that the following text is now official policy at SD:
The warped attitudes and beliefs displayed by some men in recent threads do not accurately represent Sacred Tradition, nor do they embody the beliefs of traditional Catholic men as a whole.
Women are the helpmates of men and they are the heart of the home. A man may be the head of the family, but the woman is the heart. The man’s place as the head of the family is to lead his unit to Heaven. Men are the stewards of their dependents, not the owners. If you attempt to justify male domination (as opposed to authentic leadership and stewardship) by using your personal, unsubstantiated interpretation of Catholic sources, you’re wrong.
Generalities formed by subjective perceptions are not only stereotyping but they are also examples of the sin of rash judgment. The way a man conducts himself in public should be wholly removed from those he comes in contact with. That is to say that he should be willing to give up his seat on a bus not only for the woman dressed in a skirt, but for the career woman, the homeless man, the teenager with his pants falling off, and anyone else he comes in contact with.
“Punishment" of women who do not conform to the personal taste of certain men is not Catholic. These men ascribe to themselves the power and authority that can be ascribed only to God.
The vile concepts attached to women whom particular men do not like is not Catholic. The terms "hideous she-beasts," "horrible pigs," &c. are examples of this unCatholic attitude.
It is not a virtue to speak this way about other people, our brethren in Christ--quite the opposite of virtuous, such behavior is sinful.
On this forum, we have many serious, traditional Catholic women who are very deliberate in the way they live their lives, trying their best to do the Lord's will. They have all had to make a choice to be traditional Catholics, to resist the world and the whims of the age, just as the traditional Catholic men of the forum have. And just as being a traditional Catholic man is not easy, it is no easy task to be a traditional Catholic woman. But to be consistently attacked, consistently lumped in with the rest of society, consistently blamed for the immoral choices of men, consistently told that they are all under the influence of feminism even if they live lives contrary to the ideology, is unfounded and wrong.
The women on this forum do not make thread after thread about how all men, even the good trad ones who are working to create a better culture for their wives and children, are solely responsible for the downfall of society. Yet, when I listen to Bishop Williamson speak about the roles and responsibilities of men and women he does not talk about women. He calls MEN out for the problems in society. He holds the males' feet to the fire and throws the challenge to the men to start acting like men and to defend the good the true and the beautiful.
Whatever this undercurrent in traditionalism is that seeks to demonize women is not welcome here. (Naturally, the same would apply regarding men, but that does not seem to be a recurrent issue here). It is one thing to reject feminism and the zeitgeist that insists upon equal social status between men and women; it is quite another to blame women for all of society's ills while simultaneously exonerating men for the same.
For his contribution to this thread, dellery will receive a 14 day ban as per the ban schedule.
Since this is their first offense, for their involvement in the discussion, Graham and Quaremerepulisti can consider this a warning. It will be docuмented on the ban schedule and their next offense will result in a one day ban.
:facepalm:
For those of you who didn't fall asleep after the first several lines, N.B. hijacking +Williamson to justify one's disguised fantasy-feminist drivel does not a Traditional missive make...
But really, stating "If you attempt to justify male domination (as opposed to authentic leadership and stewardship) by using your personal, unsubstantiated interpretation of Catholic sources, you’re wrong" is just another way to dispatch any proof of the male sex's superiority in any matter of authority, which could never fit in with the feminist program henceforth in full force at that forum.
As I wrote elsewhere, first they took a stance on race, then on sedevacantism, and now women. As I live and breathe! What will be next? A stance on which side of the toast should be buttered? Get ready, people, at this point anything is fair game.
-
I sent a PM about the recent bans and the new guess-what-we're-thinking policy - I didn't get a very satisfying explanation. For what it's worth, I'm not the only one unhappy with it. I still like SD, but I don't care for the direction that it took here. The moderation is a bit heavy handed at times, and this is a good example of how that can go wrong.
Maximillian made some really edifying posts. I won't be going back while he's banned.
The warnings for Graham and Quaremerepulisti make just about zero sense too.
-
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.
That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
-
They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
Saint Pius X made destructive changes to the liturgy? What were these? I remember that he changed the breviary. Is that what you mean? Or did he make other changes (like Pius XII changing the holy week) that I am unaware of?
-
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
Wow, that is something. I will look for his posts since you rate him so highly. Did he post on any other forums than SD?
-
The changes to the Breviary are just the beginning. Pius X was an arch-innovator - no Pope had ever exercised such power over the rites of the Church, and no Pope had ever shown such a love for innovation.
Vatican II didn't emerge out of a void. It was the final result of tendencies and ideas that had long been bubbling under in the Church. Pius X was a faithful Catholic who opposed innovation, but in doing so he inadvertently became an innovator himself. He thought he could save the Church by changing it's traditions. How's that been working out for us?
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/most-interfering-of-popes.html
Sacraments I am sure are supposed to be life changing events, rather than a simple reward for turning up. From very early on until that old modernist Pope St Pius X changed things - those people who are anxious about Francis would have been apoplectic about Pio. He not merely changing the Apostolic order of the sacraments - Confirmation after Communion - but wanting to introduce not merely frequent but even daily Communion. Communion not just for Holy monks and hermits who had proved themselves in ascetical discipline, in long vigils and depth of prayer but on a regular basis for those who had only recently attained the age of reason and probably hadn't yet learnt to use it. It was madness!
For almost 1,800 years, ever since Paul had written to the Corinthian suggesting that the Holy Eucharist kills, and is dangerous, and indeed can both give Salvation but also Condemnation and death, Communion was something which most sane people took part in rarely, to the point where the Council of the Lateran made annual reception a precept of the Church, even then pastorally minded bishops seemed not to insist too strongly, except in the case of imminent death.
One of the nonsenses spread abroad by those 1970s liturgists is that in that mythical period ‘the early Church’ people were receiving not merely regularly but frequently, in all probability every Sunday, I think the evidence for that is very flimsy!
The point is of course that the sacraments are Life Giving Events including, maybe especially so, Holy Communion, Pius’ reforms made them mundane and lead to the abuses we have today where just because you are whatever years old or in Miss X’s class, or at Mass you receive the Communion, Confession or Comfirmation, So now the Sacraments are received frequently they have come to mean very little in the life of the Church or the spiritual development of its members, their power to impart Grace or Salvation hardly figures in contemporary catechesis, the liturgy has become not so much a mystical meeting with Heaven but 'a celebration of the community'.
So many of the ills of today’s Church can be laid directly at the door of this most interfering of Popes, the most important being that Sacraments do not change lives. Of course in the teeth of all that his predecessors had upheld down the ages, he thought he was being 'pastoral' - God preserve us!
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/pius-xs-daily-fix.html
I encourage people to come to daily Mass, I celebrate Mass daily, I think going to Holy Communion daily is a good thing but it was not always thus.
St Pius X, that arch-innovator, not only changed the order of the sacraments placing First Confession and First Holy Communion before Confirmation but also made the daily celebration of Mass - and consequently the daily reception of Holy Communion - for priests a norm. Until then daily attendance at Mass was usual but the reception of Holy was not. There are older priests in my diocese who remember ancient priests in my diocese in the 1950s who only celebrated Mass on a Sunday, or when they were bound to do so by the Code of Canon Law because of piety not impiety, trusting in the judgement of the Church rather than their own feelings of worthiness or otherwise.
St Theresa of Lisieux was one of the few nuns in her convent who was given permission by her confessor to receive daily. Before the Reformation it was not unusual for a gap of several months to elapse between a priest's ordination and his first Mass, When some of early followers of Ignatius of the Loyola introduced the novelty in Rome of daily reception St Philip Neri introduced the (novelty) of daily Confession.
The Venetian Ambassador to Henry VIII's court remarked on the piety of the English, their attendance daily at Mass and Vespers but even so they seemed to receive Holy Communion only once a year. The Lateran Council of course had introduced the Paschal Precept of annual reception of Confession and Holy Communion but the emphasis was the reception of Holy Communion, Confession was always the preparation for Holy Communion.
I don't know how common Martin Luther's practise in his early days was (if it is correctly reported) that he would interrupt his Mass when he celebrated and go to Confession immediately before the Consecration, even if this a myth, the story illustrates that the expectation was that priest should be in a perfect state of Grace, with no attachment to sin, in order to celebrate, similarly there was the expectation that those who communicated were in a similar state.
Though the Lateran talks about an annual reception of Holy Communion: the ancient Tradition of the Church was that a once in a lifetime reception of Holy Communion was all that was necessary for salvation. In Spain until almost modern times and in the Orthodox world still, even in the Romanised Rites, Holy Communion is always giving as part of the Baptism, after Confirmation, in the case of infants. The pastoral presumption in many places is that although the child may attend the Liturgy all their life they will rarely, if ever Communicate.
Holy Communion does not "indelibly" mark the soul but initiation does, as does a single encounter with Christ in the scriptures, it is life changing.
As good and pious the practise of daily Communion is, it tends to set up a tendency where it almost becomes a necessity to have a daily "fix" to maintain a spiritual life, rather than understanding a single Communion is a life changing event. Pius X would have understood Holy Communion as signifying a state that already existed, of perfect Communion with Christ, we seem to have moved quite some distance from that and seem to be moving further away from it.
Expecting people to receive or to be able to receive daily and at every Mass has made the Church either a place for Saints - and consequently not for sinners or a place were Holy Communion is about ordinariness, and reception without thought or understanding, preparation or thanksgiving, and where attendance at Mass is meaningless without Holy Communion.
-
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.
That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.
-
Pius X did not innovate on matters of faith and morals, and the reform of the Breviary was all but necessary by that time. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with encouraging frequent reception of Communion, because it encourages people to get to Confession more frequently, amongst other things.
-
That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
"faithandvigilance"??
At any rate, even if we completely ignore your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, suggesting that Pope St. Pius X made changes harmful to the Church is at bare minimum seriously erroneous as it seems to fall under the condemned proposition that the Church can give us something harmful to the Faith.
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
There are some posters I really like, and then there is the best poster in the entire online Trad community: Ken Gordon on Bellarmine. Have you ever read his posts? He hasn't posted in at least months and the Bellarmine Forums have shuttered again, but those posts are great.
-
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
Wow, that is something. I will look for his posts since you rate him so highly. Did he post on any other forums than SD?
I think he may have posted on Ignis Ardens back in the day, but I know him from his SD posts.
-
No, you are wrong. Everyone knows that Matto is the greatest poster in the online traditional Catholic world. LOL.
-
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.
That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.
What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?
-
No, you are wrong. Everyone knows that Matto is the greatest poster in the online traditional Catholic world. LOL.
What did you think of Te Deum, Matto?
I haven't seen enough to comment about it yet except that I noticed that it is pretty new so there are not many members yet. But I think I will add it to my favorites and check up on it now and again.
-
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.
That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.
What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?
You got answers you didn't like, so you claim you got no answers? :confused1:
-
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.
That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.
What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?
It is impossible for the entire Church to be in error. The entire Church followed Vatican I. Ergo.
Moreover, I believe several members did refute what you said. But the crux of the matter was that you were publicly doubting an infallible doctrine of the faith. That is unacceptable. There is enough heresy and error in the world, and we don't need any of it on a Catholic forum.
And by the way, I didn't ban discussion of the prudence of Vatican I, but rather it's legitimacy, so most of your posts in this thread were devoted to proving a moot point.
-
I am investigating SD to see if I want to post there. I found this which is not promising:
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=1181.90 (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=1181.90)
Archer said:
"Petrie has been banned for one day for calling Pope Francis an enemy of God. "
I can't believe this is not allowed. If Francis is not an enemy of God then God has no enemies.
Matthew has this to say about the Pope; "Christ founded a visible Church with a priesthood, with a hierarchy and Pope at the head."
-
They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
Saint Pius X made destructive changes to the liturgy? What were these? I remember that he changed the breviary. Is that what you mean? Or did he make other changes (like Pius XII changing the holy week) that I am unaware of?
Pius X started the liturgical reform. He promoted frequent (even daily) reception of Holy Communion. He issued a reform that allowed children to make their forst Holy Communion at teh age of reason (7 years) rather than at the age of discretion (around 13) He also promoted the use of Gregorian chant. I personally do not think of Pius X's changes as destructive.
-
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.
That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.
What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?
It is impossible for the entire Church to be in error. The entire Church followed Vatican I. Ergo.
Moreover, I believe several members did refute what you said. But the crux of the matter was that you were publicly doubting an infallible doctrine of the faith. That is unacceptable. There is enough heresy and error in the world, and we don't need any of it on a Catholic forum.
And by the way, I didn't ban discussion of the prudence of Vatican I, but rather it's legitimacy, so most of your posts in this thread were devoted to proving a moot point.
You are mistaken. the entire Church didn't follow Vatican I. There was a schism that followed. Today there are communities of "Old Catholics" who date themselves from this schism.
-
tmw89 wrote:
But really, stating "If you attempt to justify male domination (as opposed to authentic leadership and stewardship) by using your personal, unsubstantiated interpretation of Catholic sources, you’re wrong" is just another way to dispatch any proof of the male sex's superiority in any matter of authority,
and there it is. You identified the crux of that tiresome not-so-well disguised justification. There are none so blind... etc.
What makes a forum good or bad? To answer that question, we might ask two more of each one: Is it faithful to Catholic Tradition? And does it recognize as enemies of the Church those nations and followers of ideology already identified by the Church as Her enemies, treating them accordingly?
I think if a forum can answer "yes" to both, there shouldn't be problems.
Very succinct.
In the "good forums" column, I notice the administrators/moderators permit strong personalities to have robust debate, and are quick to rein in error tout de suite - the very reason I avoid the "bad forums" list, those who permit insult to Our Lord via permitting error.
-
Matto, go to whatever forum you're interested in knowing about and you'll probably find there a person or two or dozen whom you know from other forums. If you trust their opinion, ask them what they think. All you'll do by asking here is draw out all of the moderators of these forums to defend their respective turfs as well as members who've been banned and wish to state how unjust their banning was. Basically, everyone with an agenda will post* whereas I'm sure you can pick out a person or two with no agenda and ask them personally.
*That is not to say that everyone who has answered has an agenda, only that it might be difficult to know who does and who does not.
-
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.
That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.
What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?
It is impossible for the entire Church to be in error. The entire Church followed Vatican I. Ergo.
Moreover, I believe several members did refute what you said. But the crux of the matter was that you were publicly doubting an infallible doctrine of the faith. That is unacceptable. There is enough heresy and error in the world, and we don't need any of it on a Catholic forum.
And by the way, I didn't ban discussion of the prudence of Vatican I, but rather it's legitimacy, so most of your posts in this thread were devoted to proving a moot point.
You are mistaken. the entire Church didn't follow Vatican I. There was a schism that followed. Today there are communities of "Old Catholics" who date themselves from this schism.
The Old Catholics defected to the Anglicans in 1932. So if they were right, the Catholic Church is in communion with a false sect, which is clearly impossible.
-
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.
That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.
What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?
It is impossible for the entire Church to be in error. The entire Church followed Vatican I. Ergo.
Moreover, I believe several members did refute what you said. But the crux of the matter was that you were publicly doubting an infallible doctrine of the faith. That is unacceptable. There is enough heresy and error in the world, and we don't need any of it on a Catholic forum.
And by the way, I didn't ban discussion of the prudence of Vatican I, but rather it's legitimacy, so most of your posts in this thread were devoted to proving a moot point.
You are mistaken. the entire Church didn't follow Vatican I. There was a schism that followed. Today there are communities of "Old Catholics" who date themselves from this schism.
The Old Catholics defected to the Anglicans in 1932. So if they were right, the Catholic Church is in communion with a false sect, which is clearly impossible.
Yes but their departure was after Vatican I. Their sacraments have been recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. That will all change now that they "ordain" women to the priesthood.
-
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.
That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.
What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?
It is impossible for the entire Church to be in error. The entire Church followed Vatican I. Ergo.
Moreover, I believe several members did refute what you said. But the crux of the matter was that you were publicly doubting an infallible doctrine of the faith. That is unacceptable. There is enough heresy and error in the world, and we don't need any of it on a Catholic forum.
And by the way, I didn't ban discussion of the prudence of Vatican I, but rather it's legitimacy, so most of your posts in this thread were devoted to proving a moot point.
You are mistaken. the entire Church didn't follow Vatican I. There was a schism that followed. Today there are communities of "Old Catholics" who date themselves from this schism.
The Old Catholics defected to the Anglicans in 1932. So if they were right, the Catholic Church is in communion with a false sect, which is clearly impossible.
Yes but their departure was after Vatican I. Their sacraments have been recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. That will all change now that they "ordain" women to the priesthood.
Since you accept their defection, where has the Catholic Church been since 1932? Which bishops have ordinary jurisdiction? Which have supplied jurisdiction?
-
Suscipe Domine The Echo Chamber is devolving by the week. It's a shame that so many of the Fisheaters got roped in by them.
I'm willing to bet that the moderators will have some sort of fight within the next three years. It seems they've already pushed out one Moderator, Bonaventure.
I've mentioned them a bit here and there at homebase. I suppose this post, however is a good broad look at how they do things.
http://thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2015/02/echo-chamber-cannibalizes-another-member.html
They continue to foster favorites who suck up to them, they foster trouble makers who create sock puppets in order to create forum wars, and they kick out people for silly little reasons--it's all so disingenuous. The place is sort of like CAF, in that you don't know if the next sensible thing that you say will get you the boot.
I, myself, was banned for talking about evangelizing atheists.
Laramie, I think you really nailed the situation in the article you posted. I agree with you 100%.
I hope everyone who has ever invested time over at SD takes the time to read it. You have a talent for assessing the situation fairly and do not take short cuts in expressing yourself. It is fair, balanced, and rightfully critical.
In fact, it is a gift. I sincerely hope people take the time to read and contemplate your ideas for all the time, effort, and brains you bring to the assessment of the situation.
Well done, Sir!
-
http://thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2015/02/echo-chamber-cannibalizes-another-member.html
Women will be instrumental, but not solely, in ushering in the anti-Christ.
-
http://thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2015/02/echo-chamber-cannibalizes-another-member.html
Women will be instrumental, but not solely, in ushering in the anti-Christ.
That should be fairly obvious. All one has to do is read the first three chapters of Genesis. I would welcome more discussion on this topic, ascent. If you feel like it, please develop this idea more fully so that we may follow along and contribute.
I can't think of a more dangerous mix than being smitten by Malachi Martin and equally smitten by feminism. Even if they do not realize they are carriers of this virus. In my view, they want to be men just as much as the radical feminists they will sometimes criticize. I have often wondered how these super Trad women who make appearances on Catholic forums, who also claim to have many children and also home school have the time to move the coffee clutch into cyber space. Something does not add up here.
Seriously, what can one say about a woman who will read Windswept House with the same gusto as her next door neighbor may read a "romance" novel? They are beyond worthless and are in fact dangerous.
Having said that, some of the finest posters are women. But those are usually women with a little more maturity and have older children or perhaps they are single.
You know Chesterton once said that the most brilliant disguise is grey hair. Because people tend to view anyone who is advanced in years as conservative or even religious and in fear of God. I say the same about these blowhard women who form the echo chamber and sometimes include timelines to their next baby's due date in their signature boxes.
Does this make me a misogynist?
-
I sent a PM about the recent bans and the new guess-what-we're-thinking policy - I didn't get a very satisfying explanation. For what it's worth, I'm not the only one unhappy with it. I still like SD, but I don't care for the direction that it took here. The moderation is a bit heavy handed at times, and this is a good example of how that can go wrong.
Maximillian made some really edifying posts. I won't be going back while he's banned.
The warnings for Graham and Quaremerepulisti make just about zero sense too.
This is just what I feel about this. I too sent a PM and am on a posting break from SD until Maximilian's temp ban is done. He is an amazing poster.
For me, one of the most helpful aspects of traditional Catholicism is its vision of godly womanhood and its stand against feminism. One thing I look for in a trad forum is a place to discuss these matters with others who understand the evil of feminism and understand it from a truly Catholic perspective. Before I discovered traditional Catholicism, I used to hang around Evangelical Christian forums and men's rights forums because these were the people who understood that feminism is wrong. However, these places were not a good fit for me.
When I found traditional Catholicism, I found a whole new depth to my faith and correction for all the errors that I had picked up in the Novus Ordo. Finding a treasure of teaching on women was just an added bonus. I felt almost cheated that the Catholic Church had had the perfect teaching about women all along and nobody had ever told me.
Anyhow, I am waiting to see what develops on SD, but I have no interest in being a member of a trad forum that does not allow people to express condemnation of feminism.
-
[re: Suscipe Domine]
I'm willing to bet that the moderators will have some sort of fight within the next three years. It seems they've already pushed out one Moderator, Bonaventure.
Bonaventure is there as a poster and seems on good terms with everyone so it does not seem likely that he was "pushed out" of being a moderator. Another former moderator, tmw, seems to be on bad terms with them. It is possible that is what happened to him, but we probably should not speculate beyond what we have been told.
-
I was wondering what posters think about the Catholic forum Suscipe Domine. I have been aware of the site for a while and have considered joining but I do not know if the site is good for a person like me. Is it bad like fisheaters or Catholic answers or is it more traditional?
I wouldn't recommend it. Feminist, lots of indult-goers and pop culture fans.
-
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.
That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.
They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.
You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.
What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?
It is impossible for the entire Church to be in error. The entire Church followed Vatican I. Ergo.
Moreover, I believe several members did refute what you said. But the crux of the matter was that you were publicly doubting an infallible doctrine of the faith. That is unacceptable. There is enough heresy and error in the world, and we don't need any of it on a Catholic forum.
And by the way, I didn't ban discussion of the prudence of Vatican I, but rather it's legitimacy, so most of your posts in this thread were devoted to proving a moot point.
You are mistaken. the entire Church didn't follow Vatican I. There was a schism that followed. Today there are communities of "Old Catholics" who date themselves from this schism.
The Old Catholics defected to the Anglicans in 1932. So if they were right, the Catholic Church is in communion with a false sect, which is clearly impossible.
Yes but their departure was after Vatican I. Their sacraments have been recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. That will all change now that they "ordain" women to the priesthood.
Since you accept their defection, where has the Catholic Church been since 1932? Which bishops have ordinary jurisdiction? Which have supplied jurisdiction?
The Catholic church is still here. The bishops of the Old Catholic churches have no ordinary jurisdiction and I haven't heard anything about their supplied jurisdiction. However the validity of their sacranments is up in the air because of their support for womens' ordination.
-
http://thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2015/02/echo-chamber-cannibalizes-another-member.html
Women will be instrumental, but not solely, in ushering in the anti-Christ.
I would welcome more discussion on this topic, ascent. If you feel like it, please develop this idea more fully so that we may follow along and contribute.
I think there are people here who can do a better job than me at presenting the statement of the problem or thesis, and expounding on it, but I'll mention a few things. I've noticed many woman are attracted to, and swayed by, New Age-esque falsehoods. I've noticed it in real life and online. One of the reasons for women subscribing to NA is because it focuses on the self and feel-good, warm & fuzzy "energies", which induces an emotional high (that's actually artificial and not from the Holy Ghost); and we know, generally, women are driven by their emotions. Since the dawn of feminism, women are increasingly becoming more self-centered with deluded egos, while avoiding the Cross and any discomforts that keep a person level-headed and grounded as a humble, prudent person. Increasingly, they defy any real penance that will help them remain connected to the Lord. The result also diminishes real love and charity for other people, while there's an increase in the superficial, easy, fake charity and synthetic love, and liberalism into which so many people are indoctrinated, which is leading to hell. Due to jew-contrived social engineering of women's deluded sense of self and gender role reversals, and the cultural war on heterosɛҳuąƖ, traditional and Catholic men, the effect is that women don't want a spouse. Their deluded egos now overshadow any natural, yet deeply buried and innate, drive to be in union with a real man through marriage and consummation. But where are the real men anymore? They're being social-engineered out. And if a woman does find a real man who evokes a true sense of identity and recognition of what's been imprinted on her heart by the Lord, that real clarity of self and connection to the man is soon demolished by the hostilities toward men that rage within herself. This stems from the jews fomenting a cavernous division between men and woman because woman are taught to resent and be contentious towards real men, especially if they're traditional, white, heterosɛҳuąƖ Christians. This all leads to a crucial apex. There is a huge void in the lives of these women since they're driven to reject real men, yet they will not admit it to themselves or anyone else, because they've convinced themselves that they're "successful" and "independent". That's what our rootless and deceived culture teaches them. Ergo, to fill this void that they don't admit, they immerse themselves in a religion of self - the New Age - which they can control and deem as good for themselves, depending on what makes them feel good. It's those "vibrations" and "energies", and growing "consciousness". This is their spouse. This gives them (false) "comfort" and "meaning".
New Age will be one of the conduits to the global false religion of the anti-Christ.
HeterosɛҳuąƖ women seem to be more tolerant to, and promoting of, pervert fαɢɢօtry than heterosɛҳuąƖ men, although it might be the same for both genders, but I'm not sure if there's a way to quantify it. Some Catholic and Orthodox prophesies say the anti-Christ will be a fag, hence his ushers will be those who have an effrontery to this grotesque perversion.
In pop culture, women are put on a higher pedestal than men, and in fictional works and fantasy, the divine-like people are usually women. I believe this is an attempt to brainwash young boys into rejecting their natural roles as leaders and fighters when they become men, and to engineer a twisted, romanticist loyalty to female leaders as if they have more intrinsic worth than males, now, and in the future. Many of these women are also immodest, narcissistic, and power-hungry, and they have a ridiculous, deluded sense of "strength" and "self-preservation". Women who manifest this disposition in real life will go unchecked and unchallenged because the boys who become "men" are accepting of it as real "strength" and "leadership". And any drive to burst out of this social-engineered, restraining bubble in which these man-boys now live will be forfeited as they will seek out porn to "remedy" their frustrations, rather than place themselves in a situation that's inconvenient or causes discomfort for themselves. These man-boys will choose psycho-sɛҳuąƖ, artificial gratification via a pixilated false reality and self-abuse, rather than what they now perceive for themselves as an inconvenience and discomfort of having to call out a woman for being a deluded, conniving, misguided, self-serving wretch.
Put all of the aforementioned together with the fact that, generally, women are more easily manipulated than men, which is why the ѕуηαgσgυє has debased white "Christian" men from pillars of American society and power structures, and replaced them with women and racial and religious minorities. The same is happening in most advanced, white civilized societies where there is a Fifth Column of jewry feeding off of the host nations. These women will be sycophants, shills and pawns for the jews as they play a major role in paving the way for the anti-Christ, and these women will try to ensure that people follow the deception after he has emerged. I don't think it'll be exclusively women as ushers of the anti-Christ, rather it'll be both men and women, but women will have a very significant role and in larger numbers than people realize. Of course, the jews will be on top of this diabolical pyramid with their father, Satan, calling the shots.
In my view, they want to be men just as much as the radical feminists they will sometimes criticize. I have often wondered how these super Trad women who make appearances on Catholic forums, who also claim to have many children and also home school have the time to move the coffee clutch into cyber space. Something does not add up here.
Just as the Lord, in His Divine Providence, graced St. Joan of Arc to fight for the Faith and France, He'll also use women to fight for the Faith in other ways, especially when there's a shortage of holy, strong, Catholic men. The internet is no different. I'm not comparing any woman here on CathInfo or other trad forums to St. Joan of Arc, nor am I saying there's a shortage of good Catholic men here at CI, but I have to say there are at least several women here who are great posters. One of my two top favorite posters here is a woman. She contributes greatly to defending and teaching the Catholic Faith, although I don't agree with her on everything. She's also a wife & mother with young children, and she's not an "older" woman with "time one her hands" like the other good posters whom you described.
I say the same about these blowhard women who form the echo chamber and sometimes include timelines to their next baby's due date in their signature boxes.
I don't know much about that forum, although I did join it less than a week ago. Generally, I don't think there's anything wrong with a trad woman posting news and info about their baby's due date or family affairs. They have the most important jobs that any woman can have - being a mother and wife - and they're proud of, and excited about, the prospect of bringing new life into the world and, by the grace of God, raising children to be saints. They should be proud and excited about it. As long as they use prudence in what they share with the online community, I don't see a problem with it. I also don't question their motives, as long as what they contribute to these forums is solid in Catholicity, dogma and doctrine.
-
Pius X did not innovate on matters of faith and morals, and the reform of the Breviary was all but necessary by that time. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with encouraging frequent reception of Communion, because it encourages people to get to Confession more frequently, amongst other things.
Tamper with the received traditions and you're tampering with the faith.
There is "nothing wrong" with overturning ancient traditions? You don't see the problem with Pius X overturning the apostolic order of the sacraments?
If it's acceptable for Pius X to overturn traditions, it's acceptable for Paul VI to do the same.
Putting aside for a moment the outrageous absurdity of drawing some kind of equivallent parallel between St. Pius X's disciplinary amendments (which he executed well within the parameters of the law and which he as the Church's Supreme Legislator had every right to do) and Paul VI's utterly unprecedented wholecloth invention of an alien, fabricated liturgy, made in collaboration with Protestant heretics and Freemasons, and without any clear, legally binding promulgation (and in direct defiance of St. Pius V's solemn pronouncements in Quo Primum) - to what logical end ought we take your premise?
Paul VI was easily (before Francis came along to give him serious competition) the worst pope in the history of the Church, and for the very outrages with which you find parallel in St. Pius X. I assume you don't consider Paul VI a saint. So do you consider St. Pius X to be one (I can't help but notice your failure to append the honorific before his name)? If Paul VI's novelties are manifestly contrary to heroic virtue, does it follow that St. Pius X's amendments were as well?
How far down this perilously slippery slope do you wish to venture?
-
See what I mean?
This is a perfect example of Pharasaical Trads wanting/needing to be better than all their Trad brethren -- needing to out-trad the trads, as it were.
This schismatic mentality is one of the biggest banes and dangers of the Traditional Catholic movement.
This is another aspect of that mentality: pride and attachment to our own private opinions, even if those opinions place us at odds with the whole known Traditional Catholic world. Hey, Our Lord did say, "When I return, do you think I will find Faith on the earth?" That quote covers any degree of extreme opinions and beliefs, right? (wrong!)
This is my conclusion, after having run a Trad Catholic forum for 7 1/2 years and counting, having personally experienced the Trad movement in its various flavors for over 3 decades (that I can remember), and having been neck-deep in the SSPX for 3.5 years while I attended their seminary.
It's my conclusion -- take it for what it's worth.
It is my firm belief that we Traditional Catholics have much more to fear from schism/home-aloneism/complete despair in the realm of Trust than we EVER have to fear the Novus Ordo and its practices sneaking into our hearts. The latter will never happen. The former? It happens every day to Trads.
I could spend HOURS giving you examples of this, from all corners of the Traditional Catholic world:
Traditional priests attacking Traditional bishops (because of disagreements in the realm of who should be ordained bishop and when)
Traditional priests attacking other Traditional priests in a most scandalous fashion because the latter won't submit to the former in matters of discipline/obedience
Catholics (who favored the classic SSPX position) rejecting the weekly Masses of a completely solid, SSPX-trained (in the 1980's) priest because said priest is not approved by their "favorite" priest.
Baseball card dealers completely treading Charity underfoot, attempting to slander and ruin individuals and even whole families because the former holds to the Siri Thesis while the latter does not.
Catholics staying home on Sunday for less-than-legitimate reasons
Catholics moving across the country -- all earthly considerations set aside, including "what will I do to earn a living" -- to live in a "mecca" or "shangri-la" of the particular group they favor, only to regret it later.
Etc
-
The Novus Ordo is evil, but how much does it really harm the average Trad? What does the Novus Ordo actually COST the average Trad?
It means we have less friends or potential friends to visit with on Sunday, perhaps no daily Mass -- but most Trads can arrange it so that they have a Tridentine Mass every Sunday.
Schism/cultism/home-alone-ism, on the other hand, can make a person completely un-churched, as well as completely lose sight of charity and the big picture of the Catholic Faith. Defense of the group/cult/theological position completely distracts some, causing them to "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel".
Which of these is more dangerous again?
-
They calumnate their members (See: https://sbyvl.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/4172/), whilst permitting feminists to roam free, banning those who oppose them (See: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10447.0 and http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10525.0). These are just two examples of their ridiculousness. There are plenty more.
All these claims are untrue, and I retract and apologize for them