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.

I think that it was God's will that I stumbled onto this thread as I needed to very badly. I, too, have been banned from CAF. & it has hurt very much. I'm a 69 yr. old Grandmother who has been Catholic all of my life.  My ban will be lifted a 9:34 this evening. I'm not going back, though. I need to share with someone, exactly what happened, but I can't get to the "evil" post that I wrote until then.

Another poster, one who seems genuinely interested & trying to re-enter her childhood faith, asked the following:

"Pope Benedict says the Mass of 1962 is perfectly valid & licit.....so can anyone tell me why it was suppressed to begin with.

She asked this question several times & no one answered it, instead it turned into a thread that questioned her identity & honesty. Finally, I answered her question:

"The Council wanted a Mass that was palatable to our Separated Brethren". It hasn't seemed to have worked."

It is very humiliating to a woman who has studied & LOVED her faith for so long, to be BANNED because she is somehow,
"comparing the two Masses".  I admire anyone who wants to bring the Protestants back into the fold, I just don't think that  writing a new Mass was the way to do it.

I am faithful to the Pope, I was 28 yrs. old when the Novus Ordo was promulgated. I tried for 10 YEARS to love it the way I loved the Tridentine Mass. After that, I simply endured. Sometimes, I became angry at Mass????  However, our city offered no indult Mass, so I just prayed.

Thanks for letting me vent.  There seems to be no place for me. :sad:

I have a question. Is it allowed by CathInfo to share the name I posted under while I spent four years at CAF.? I don't want to be banned from this site, too.  However, I would like to let some of you "former CAFers" know who I am?? I changed my screen name for this forum because I was afraid that some of the NO. Catholics would follow me here to continue their "just be kind to everyone but don't rock MY boat"type of stuff. They will tolerate anything except Traditional Catholicism.

You should appeal.

I don't want to post there anymore. The Traditional Catholics have been either banned or chased off, especially during the last 2 months.

Pop over there & take a look at the "Traditional Forum". It is now populated by JREducation, TGConstantine & Sirach2 who haven't a clue. I doubt that, though Pope Benedict has given his approval for the Latin Mass & it is once again part of Catholicism, any of them have ever attended one. In fact, many of them hate the TLM. & accuse us of being "holier than thou". Need I go one??

They bad mouth the SSPX, though our Pope is trying to reconnect with them.  They take great joy in saying that we are not REQUIRED to believe in private revelations, even those who have been approved by the Church.

I held on for 4 YEARS, so that someone could actually present the Traditional Way. I just can't do it anymore. As I said, my ban will be revoked by Mr. Casey at 9:34 this evening........but, I'm done.

All I've ever asked is that the hierarchy in this country AND the laity embrace the TLM. as they have embraced the NO.

tlmforme, you'd have to talk to Matthew about changing your screen-name, but if you're able to do so I don't think Matthew would have much of a problem with you using a screen-name from CAF as long as you are a Traditionalist, which you clearly are. I don't really blame you for not wanting to post there anymore. Not long before I was banned from there I was thinking about leaving anyway because I got tired of the modernists being allowed to do almost anything they pleased. You did pretty good to hang on for 4 years, I was only there for a month and a half!

Unbelievable!

My appeal of the decision of Thomas Casey was decided by....Thomas Casey!! Talk about a conflict of interest! I specifically asked in my appeal that it be decided by a third party moderator!

It looks like the strategy is to pile on ridiculous unfounded suspensions and then use the unfounded suspensions as a pattern.

I could go through each suspension and explain why each was bogus, but is it worth it?

I QUOTED CA itself AGREEING with my point! How in the world was I downing the NO by pointing out that if a rubric is violated it is illicit?

What a load of horse puckey!


Here is my appeal:

Hi,
 
I would like to appeal the 30 day infraction I received at Catholic Answers Forum by Thomas Casey at 12:06 am on 2/26.
 
I would like a moderator other than Mr. Casey to decide my appeal to avoid a conflict of interest.
 
Thank you.
 
The message from Mr. Casey stated:
 
"Dear stevusmagnus,

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.

If you wish, you may appeal my decision by writing forumadmin@catholic.com"
 
My post was as follows:
 
"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."
 
In support of this statement, I'd like to cite to Catholic Answers own Q&A.
 
 http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Mass/page8
 
"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."
 
 
According to Catholic Answers' interpretation of illicit (which is the accepted interpretation) my post said nothing incorrect.
 
To point out examples of illicit Masses is in no way pitting the OF vs. the EF. An illicit Mass is an illicit Mass whether said in the ordinary or extraordinary form.
 
I strongly disagree that the previous "infractions" that Mr. Casey mentions were truly infractions, just as this statement of mine was not truly an infraction. I disagreed with my previous one month infraction, as I thought it was based on faulty premises and, in any case, extremely severe. However, I refrained from appealing due to time connstraints. Nevertheless, I could not let this infraction go unanswered as I think it is wrong as a matter of justice.
 
I want to be able to post and be a productive member of this forum, but it seems anything I write is subject to an immediate month long suspension with no ability to respond to Mr. Casey via PM nor any opportunity given to me by Mr. Casey to explain my statement or clarify it.
 
Thank you for your time and consideration,

CAF Response:

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding your current suspension.  I would like to point you to the reason for the suspension.  Please reread my message.

“you have violated the rules too many times and you continue to do so.”

Your history reflects eight violations of the rules.  Some are for the same reason.  On five of those eight occasions, you received five-point infractions.  Twice, before this, your account was suspended.  In each event, we informed you that you were violating forum rules and encouraged to familiarize yourself with them.  

Once again you violated a forum rule.  You used a snippet of a post from AAA to criticize the Ordinary Form of the Mass.   That was not the even the subject of the thread.  This kind of behavior is unacceptable.  The rules are very clear.  Both forms of the mass must be respected and posters may not pit one against the other.  This includes taking advantage of opportunities to attack one form or the other.  

I am willing to reduce the suspension to one week, if we agree that should you violate the rules again at any time, within the next 90 days, there will be another suspension or a more serious consequence proportionate to the infraction and your history of infractions.  

Please let me know if this is agreeable to you.  I am willing to work with you, but you must meet me halfway.  I hope that we can settle this and move forward.

Sincerely,

Thomas Casey
Moderator
Catholic Answers Forums

It's possible. It won't be much longer before they ban stevus either. I guess Thomas Casey is a somewhat more patient mod than the one who banned me (Eric Hilbert) who banned me just hours after I asked him why I was given an infraction.

One member there, "OurLadyPerpHelp" just got banned recently. She was the only one who told off a modernist in the thread from CAF I posted here. Poor woman, she only lasted there for about a week!

OLPH. was the poster who asked me, "since the Pope has said that the TLM. is a Holy Mass.......why was it suppressed after Vatican II". It's a shame that she got banned, as she was always polite, yet rather insistent of an answer to her questions. Such a BAD CATHOLIC!!! :rolleyes:

It looks like the strategy is to pile on ridiculous unfounded suspensions and then use the unfounded suspensions as a pattern.

I could go through each suspension and explain why each was bogus, but is it worth it?

If you could go through each suspension and post them all I think it would be a great idea?

I think if a lot of people did this, just came to a public forum like this and posted all their infractions..

It would certainly shed some light on what's crawling around in the darkness.

And be interesting reading too.