Author Topic: Cath Info Posters - priorities and topics (Read 7595 times)

stevusmagnus · « **on:** November 23, 2010, 09:09:59 PM »

The unwarranted attacks on the Society is pretty frightening.

I'm hoping the board returns to a sane and balanced mainstream Society view of Tradition soon to get back to some actual useful discussion about the crisis and dealing with the NO. It's time to stop holding personal vendettas, blurting emotionally charged visceral reactions, condemning BXVI as an anti-pope without even understanding what he said (nor caring) and flirting with the delusionally schismatic dead end of Sedevacantism. There is even now a thread praising Abp. Thuc over ABL and some poster keeps posting looney Sede literature.

I feel like I need to read some solid books and seriously relevant and cogent Traditional commentary like CFN, Angelus, and the Remnant. Some of you guys are starting to float off to the planet Neptune and need to get grounded in reality.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2010, 01:00:58 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

The unwarranted attacks on the Society and BF, and kooky and insane Sedes that have infiltrated this board recently are pretty frightening.

I'm hoping the board returns to a sane and balanced mainstream Society view of Tradition soon to get back to some actual useful discussion about the crisis and dealing with the NO. It's time to stop wringing our hands over conspiracy theories, holding personal vendettas, blurting emotionally charged visceral reactions, condemning BXVI as an anti-pope without even understanding what he said (nor caring) and flirting with the delusionally schismatic dead end of Sedevacantism. There is even now a thread praising Abp. Thuc over ABL and some poster keeps posting looney Sede literature.

I feel like I need to read some solid books and seriously relevant and cogent Traditional commentary like CFN, Angelus, and the Remnant. Some of you guys are starting to float off to the planet Neptune and need to get grounded in reality.

Stevus, you can stop calling the members of this forum kooks and conspiracy theororists. You cant connect the dots when it comes to the crisis in the church. Most of us do not see eye to eye with you and your preposterous ideas!
If you dont like what we say, go elsewhere, but stop your name calling NOW![/b] :good-shot:

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2010, 01:28:22 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

like CFN, Angelus, and the Remnant

Publications that contains some good articles, while keeping up the delusions.

Zenith · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2010, 03:28:14 AM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote from: stevusmagnus
The unwarranted attacks on the Society and BF, and kooky and insane Sedes that have infiltrated this board recently are pretty frightening.

I'm hoping the board returns to a sane and balanced mainstream Society view of Tradition soon to get back to some actual useful discussion about the crisis and dealing with the NO. It's time to stop wringing our hands over conspiracy theories, holding personal vendettas, blurting emotionally charged visceral reactions, condemning BXVI as an anti-pope without even understanding what he said (nor caring) and flirting with the delusionally schismatic dead end of Sedevacantism. There is even now a thread praising Abp. Thuc over ABL and some poster keeps posting looney Sede literature.

I feel like I need to read some solid books and seriously relevant and cogent Traditional commentary like CFN, Angelus, and the Remnant. Some of you guys are starting to float off to the planet Neptune and need to get grounded in reality.

Stevus, you can stop calling the members of this forum kooks and conspiracy theororists. You cant connect the dots when it comes to the crisis in the church. Most of us do not see eye to eye with you and your preposterous ideas!
If you dont like what we say, go elsewhere, but stop your name calling NOW![/b] :good-shot:

Name calling is simply a way to try and discredit others when you cannot come up with a reasonable or constructive answer in a discussion.

Wessex · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2010, 05:15:23 AM »

stevusmagnus,

You will find a lot of us here were big supporters of the Society in the early days, seeing it as a refuge against the religious and political changes of the day. ABL was active in both areas. But, whereas the leadership and its organs are now moving towards liberal positions and adopting the consensus of the status-quo on many issues, some of us including Bp. Williamson want to stay as we are and not follow the crowd.

Dawn · « **Reply #5 on:** November 24, 2010, 05:30:23 AM »

You had some sort of problem at Fisheaters right? And, anytime something happens there you rush to put it up on this site. I always tell myself, If one person says I have a problem, well maybe. Two say it I better think hard. And, in your case two entire forums..........You and Caminus should start your own forum Culties for PappaRatzi

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** November 24, 2010, 06:14:36 AM »

Posters who have left the reservation are the posters who defend condom use and who pretend pharisees who taught easy divorce and lying were preparing the way of Christ.

Those posters have demonstrated they are cultists and follow their leaders without regard to Catholic truth.

TKGS · « **Reply #7 on:** November 24, 2010, 06:32:48 AM »

When I saw the title of this topic I immediately thought it was about stevusmagnus's insane defense of condoms. I was stunned to find that it was actually from stevusmagnus complaining about people who don't agree with him on every issue.

This is definitely one topic that serves no useful purpose.

spouse of Jesus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 24, 2010, 09:18:26 AM »

Yes he is right some topics are very gloomy and bitter. And one can be disillusioned and fell into despair (depending on the his soul's dispositions etc.) like what happens to me sometimes.
But it is the hard situations that make posts gloomy, not posters themselves.

Belloc · « **Reply #9 on:** November 24, 2010, 09:21:19 AM »

Quote from: Dawn

You had some sort of problem at Fisheaters right? And, anytime something happens there you rush to put it up on this site. I always tell myself, If one person says I have a problem, well maybe. Two say it I better think hard. And, in your case two entire forums..........You and Caminus should start your own forum Culties for PappaRatzi

actually, yes-FE was terrible and they were terrible to Stevus and others, but after they booted him out, he then wentto CAF, who also does not like him...I am not sure, but AQ might have either booted Stevus or attacked him, now CI is not a warm palce for him......there is a pattern here, I see..after awhile, sometime a few yrs, he finally goes :argue:

:really-mad2:

and on the attack......true, FE Stevus was in the right...but, now, one wonders if he is not letting his anger and his bitterness get the best of him.....also, the rather twisty turny world of lawyering, after awhile, one is likely not sure what end is up....

as for "kkoky Jєω" theories, guess he denigrates Fr. fahey too.and Chesterton.......and Belloc......and many Catholic writers down through the centuries that have shows, proved, expossed, warned about the Jєωs and their continuing agitating against Chirst....the Jєω does NOT want to live and let live at all....but attack, subterfuge and negate and get Christians to negate, the Gospel.

oh, and lets throw John Chysostom under that Kooky bus too....

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 24, 2010, 09:24:55 AM »

If you look on the "condom" thread you'll see that I just went through the trouble of clearly defining the issues in relation to the specific hypothetical so there will be no confusion.

Assuming those accusing me of "defending condoms" are innocently misguided and not being malicious, I will clarify.

I have been posing a question as to whether the use of a condom in a specific hypothetical scenario adds an additional sin in and of itself. I have never said the use of a condom to contracept is anything but sinful, as previous Popes have said. If any of you think you can demonstrate that the use of a condom in the hypothetical is sinful, you are more than welcome to join the thread and prove it, citing Catholic sources. If not, then you are obligated as a Catholic not to accuse me of "defending condoms" as I have just explained to you I do not.

This, of course, has nothing to do with my OP here, which is just an observation that a certain element has crept up on this Forum distracting from beneficial discussion of modern errors and the crisis, choosing instead to focus on emotionally charged non-reasoned accusations towards Bishop Fellay, the Society, and the Pope.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** November 24, 2010, 09:26:51 AM »

Someone who says it's not a sin to take a condom when they are intending to commit sodomy is a defender of condoms. Such a thing is totally unheard of in Catholic teaching.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #12 on:** November 24, 2010, 09:32:56 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Someone who says it's not a sin to take a condom when they are intending to commit sodomy is a defender of condoms. Such a thing is totally unheard of in Catholic teaching.

As someone who has participated in the entire "condom" thread you should know better.

I posed the question and asked if anyone could explain to me how using one, in the specific hypo I gave was a sin in and of itself. You are basically the only one who tried, but apparently cannot even cite one Catholic source to support your conclusion, therefore your argument is not convincing.

Thus I am not "defending" condom use. I am simply asking a moral theology question that remains open. You are confusing me playing devil's advocate to point out the flaws in your reasoning with me "defending condom use". My position is still one of objectivity. Again, if anyone would like to prove the use in the hypo is or is not sinful, citnig Catholic sources, you are more than welcome to do so.

spouse of Jesus · « **Reply #13 on:** November 24, 2010, 09:33:06 AM »

About that thread:
The fact is that for a sodomist it never matters whether such a thing is sinful or not.
He is already in the mortal sin. Why do you think such a one ever bothers about the church's teachings?

Belloc · « **Reply #14 on:** November 24, 2010, 09:33:09 AM »

Stevus, before I joined CI, tehre were many threads on 9/11, NWO,etc and that has not changed since I joined up to today, at this time and this place..soo....

not sure why you say it is creeping in, as if it is a new thing? I realize you have posted here much more recently, then in the past-when you wre also at CAF and other places,likely, so maybe yo missed many of our threads and discussions.

I long ago washed my hands of CAF, and dont post at FE-as you well know in our threads and PMs to each other on that.....

as to "emotionally charged non-reasoned accusations towards Bishop Fellay, the Society, and the Pope. "

are you saying the 100's of links, posts, reposts and responses are all non-reasoned?? taht you alone have the reason? you just wash your hands of the mountain of evidence that the Pope is complicit in the problems at times-JP2 and now, B16?? that they are not proclaiming the truth, but going back and forth, error and truth combined????

and Fellay, sure he has a hard time is chief at SSPX, true, but under him, the articles get purged, he attacks his own ranks while continuing dialogue and threatening to boot members/clergy over their personal opinions and lawyer choices?

much as some SV get cultish in their position it seems you are being much more frantic in exonerating B16 of all wrong, same too for Fellay.....its either that or SV, no middle ground with you?

I am finding most SV here seemed fairly reasoned, if wrong at times in my view.....

are they all kooky? all wrong??

you want to focus on the errors? fine and good, but you have to be ready to focus on all errors and all palyers and where that rabbit hole goes.....connecting dots is not always easy and worse, you may not always like where that leads, I know it has at times been hard for me,too......