Author Topic: Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF  (Read 4853 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CathMomof7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1049
  • Reputation: +1271/-12
  • Gender: Female
Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2011, 01:40:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Exilenomore
    Let us pray that God will lead people away from such blasphemy.


    Personally, I believe that in totality very few NO Catholics ever really are lead out of the fire.  

    Offline Elizabeth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4847
    • Reputation: +2191/-13
    • Gender: Female
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #16 on: February 18, 2011, 02:07:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is also a hard attrition rate for traditional Catholics.

    Similarly, there was a hard rate of attrition 100, 200 years ago.  

    Tragically, many people refuse to co-operate with God's Grace and go to Hell.

    There have always been good Catholics who had disappointing outcomes with their offspring.

    If we are given the grace to seek Catholic Tradition, during a crisis, then more is expected of us.  We need to do the 9 First Fridats and 5 First Saturdays of Reparation and practice loving kindness to win souls.  When we fail, we need to beg for the holy assistance of the Saints to get us back onto the path of humility and holiness.


    Offline LM

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 333
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #17 on: February 22, 2011, 12:53:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • CA is what it is, a place where Truth is obscured by modernism/liberalism/heresy.

    As one person plainly put it:

    Quote


    Quote=SaintGobban

     I'm fairly new to this site, but I find that if one has been to one internet chat board, they've pretty much been to them all. And, I've been to lots.

    My sincerest hope is that people who are really seeking answers do not use this site as a source.

    Much of the information that is being given out here is in error. People just say whatever they think, and it is usually wrong. There really hasn't been very much teaching going on in the Church, real formation, real hard core catechesis, for a loooonnnnggg time.

    But also, I believe there is a genuine element of evil both online and in the Church. There really are people whose sole aim is to misinform, confuse, agitate, invalidate what is true. The internet is really rife with that.

    The internet, including this site, attracts people who hide behind the anonymity and only seem to want to provoke. So, if you sincerely want to know about Christ and the Catholic Church, go to someplace that you can trust. Someplace that has credibility. THIS IS NOT IT.



    Below is a response to the above post:   Remember the modernist "Franciscan bro/aka JReducation " from other discussions, well this modernist/wolf in sheep's clothing "Franciscan bro" is one of the "favored" at CA.

    Quote

    quote=ConstantineTG

    Actually, my sincerest hope is that people who are seeking answers use this site. They can either go to "Ask an Apologist" or go to Catholic Answers website and read the articles there.

    Also with some familiarity you will get to know the people who give good and accurate answers here. I always look to JREducation for all things Roman Catholic and Franciscan, and to Alexander Roman for all things Eastern. There are many regulars too who give great and accurate answers such as FrDavid in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum.

    Being a forum, you have the same mix of people here as in the real world. When one goes foruming, one should understand that is to be the case. Unless its a highly regulated forum where only certified experts can answer, you'll always get a mix of answers no matter which forum it is, no matter what topic.
    __________________

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #18 on: February 22, 2011, 02:24:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I remember JReducation. He is one of the most modernist people in the religious life I have ever seen. He never got nasty like some of the other modernists there and that's good that he kept it clean, but he didn't know the first thing about Tradition. If I remember correctly he said he wasn't even willing to fully rule out the "possibility" that Archbishop LeFebvre was not in Heaven (he was basically implying ABL was a heretic).

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #19 on: February 26, 2011, 09:56:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was suspended yet again on CAF.

    A Neo-Cath wrote:

    Quote
    To many people here the notion of a Mass being "illicit" means next to nothing.

    I have never understood how one can claim to be on the side of the Church when they knowingly and purposely attend Masses that they know are illicit. That, coupled with the fact that sspx priests are suspended of their duties and act in disobedience every time they celebrate Mass would seem (to me, at least) to be cause for concern.

    But that's just me.


    I wrote:

    Quote
    If you've ever attended a NO Mass where the priest said one word wrong or got one rubric wrong you've attended an "illicit" Mass. If you regularly attend a Mass where Eucharistic Ministers are used but are not absolutely needed, you are attending an "illicit" Mass.


    Catholic Answers Moderator then sent me a private message stating:
     
    Quote

    You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums.

    Reason: Continuous violoation of rules, despite many infractions
    -------
    Your statement is incorrect, to begin with.

    Second, it violates the forum rules that say you may not pit one form of the mass against the other.

    Third, you have violated the rules too many times and you continue to do so.

    Therefore, your account is suspended for one month. You cannot be on these fora and violate rules at a rate of one a month. If you want to participate on Catholic Answers, you must comply with our rules.


    The previous "violations" were just as ridiculous.

    I'm not sure how he could make the claim I'm pitting one form of the Mass against the other with a straight face.

    I'm going to appeal. I expect nothing, but I'll at least make the case to a third party that this is nuts, even by Neo-Cath standards.


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #20 on: February 26, 2011, 10:02:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    I remember JReducation. He is one of the most modernist people in the religious life I have ever seen. He never got nasty like some of the other modernists there and that's good that he kept it clean, but he didn't know the first thing about Tradition. If I remember correctly he said he wasn't even willing to fully rule out the "possibility" that Archbishop LeFebvre was not in Heaven (he was basically implying ABL was a heretic).


    Only believing Catholics go to Hell.  That is what conciliarists would have people believe.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #21 on: February 26, 2011, 10:12:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Straight from CAF Q&A , supporting my definition of "illicit":


    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Mass/page8

    Quote
    Masses are not valid or invalid, they are licit (in conformity with the law) or illicit (not in conformity with the law). It is the consecration of the Eucharist within the Mass that can be valid or invalid.

    Whether a crucifix is present at the altar has no bearing on whether the Eucharist is valid or invalid (the absence of a crucifix will not cause the Eucharist to be invalid), but it does have a bearing on whether the Mass is licit or illicit.

    The law requires that "There is to be a cross, clearly visible to the congregation, either on the altar or near it" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM] 270). The revised General Instruction—which has not yet gone into effect—clarifies that the cross in question should have a corpus (representation of Christ’s body), meaning that it should be a crucifix rather than a bare cross.

    If there were no cross by on or near the altar (or, once the new GIRM goes into effect, no crucifix) then the Mass would be illicit, or not celebrated in accord with the requirements of the law.

    However, a Mass celebrated in this manner would still have a valid consecration of the Eucharist. Furthermore, it would still fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #22 on: February 26, 2011, 10:18:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If a NO is not in conformity with liturgical law it is "illicit", just as they say SSPX Masses are "illicit". Therefore how can they criticize Catholics who go to "illicit" Society Masses when 90% of all NO Masses are "illicit" due to aberrations in following the NO rubrics?

    "Licitness" does not affect the Mass fulfilling one's Sunday obligation anyway, according to Catholic Answers themselves!


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #23 on: February 26, 2011, 10:32:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    You heard people saying stuff like that long before Modernism.  That's just relativism, weak faith, humanism, whatever you want to call it.

    You can't hold it agains the website that someone comes on and is a relativist.  But the scary thing is that only one person on the entire first page took him to task and corrected him.


    I think it is modernism because he claims to have the Faith while rejecting the essentials of the Faith.

     "Does that mean I don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches? No"

    Offline LM

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 333
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #24 on: February 26, 2011, 11:52:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    I was suspended yet again on CAF.



    I wrote:

    Quote
    If you've ever attended a NO Mass where the priest said one word wrong or got one rubric wrong you've attended an "illicit" Mass. If you regularly attend a Mass where Eucharistic Ministers are used but are not absolutely needed, you are attending an "illicit" Mass.


    Catholic Answers Moderator then sent me a private message stating:
     
    Quote

    You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums.

    Reason: Continuous violoation of rules, despite many infractions
    -------
    Your statement is incorrect, to begin with.

    Second, it violates the forum rules that say you may not pit one form of the mass against the other.


    Third, you have violated the rules too many times and you continue to do so.

    Therefore, your account is suspended for one month. You cannot be on these fora and violate rules at a rate of one a month. If you want to participate on Catholic Answers, you must comply with our rules.


    The previous "violations" were just as ridiculous.

    I'm not sure how he could make the claim I'm pitting one form of the Mass against the other with a straight face.

    I'm going to appeal. I expect nothing, but I'll at least make the case to a third party that this is nuts, even by Neo-Cath standards.


    Stevus, what do you expect from the "mod", certainly not integrity.  He is just doing his "duty" being "faithful" to CA's party line.   All anyone has to do is read CA's Liturgy and Sacraments forum, to know that illicit NOs abound.  But of course, some reason(s) had to be made up for the suspension.

     




    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #25 on: February 26, 2011, 02:42:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nice to see you here again, stevus! That moderator is the one who is incorrect. Just out of curiosity, which mod gave you that infraction? Thomas Casey?


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #26 on: February 26, 2011, 02:58:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks.

    Yes, it was Casey.

    At some point they need to question the very existence of a discussion forum, where the rules are interpreted so restrictively as to kill discussion. Also the rules are forced so arbitrarily and with no warning, you can't even make good faith posts without knowing whether you'll be suspended for a month. It is ridiculous.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #27 on: February 26, 2011, 05:31:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree with you. I was banned without warning. After being given an infraction, I politely asked why I was given one, and the mod banned me hours later. This one was Eric Hilbert. I haven't seen him post there lately, but I found him to be rather arrogant. Thomas Casey isn't much better...

    Offline LM

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 333
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #28 on: February 26, 2011, 07:22:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Thanks.

    Yes, it was Casey.

    At some point they need to question the very existence of a discussion forum, where the rules are interpreted so restrictively as to kill discussion. Also the rules are forced so arbitrarily and with no warning, you can't even make good faith posts without knowing whether you'll be suspended for a month. It is ridiculous.


    I question the existence of CA's Trad forum.  It serves no other purpose than to let the NO trolls run rampant.  Nothing Traditional can be discussed without the NO trolls jumping in and creating havoc.   The trolls know that with Casey (as with the prior "mods"),  they can get away with disrupting any Traditional discussion.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF
    « Reply #29 on: February 27, 2011, 08:21:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: LM
    Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Thanks.

    Yes, it was Casey.

    At some point they need to question the very existence of a discussion forum, where the rules are interpreted so restrictively as to kill discussion. Also the rules are forced so arbitrarily and with no warning, you can't even make good faith posts without knowing whether you'll be suspended for a month. It is ridiculous.


    I question the existence of CA's Trad forum.  It serves no other purpose than to let the NO trolls run rampant.  Nothing Traditional can be discussed without the NO trolls jumping in and creating havoc.   The trolls know that with Casey (as with the prior "mods"),  they can get away with disrupting any Traditional discussion.


    I agree with you, LM. The NO people there can get away with nearly anything. But if a Traditionalist cuts down Vatican II just one time, they get booted. They're full of double standards.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16