Author Topic: Traditional Catholics (Read 7086 times)

trickster · « **Reply #45 on:** July 02, 2014, 08:41:02 AM »

Quote from: Nickolas

Trickster, Bruce Ferguson, or whatever your name is, you are absolutely wrong in saying that: "all of us should be ready to go out of our comfort zone" unless you qualify what you mean. For a Traditional Catholic, the only movement out of our comfort zone is to a place of greater penance for the salvation of our souls and the love of our Blessed Lord. If you believe otherwise, you have the wrong concept of what it means to be a Traditional Catholic. I suspect your presence here is not innocent and if you came to take souls into your evil belief system rather than discard the chains that have you tied up, you are wasting your time and ours.

Your very presence, disguised in some form of new age mush, is more telling in various other websites about tricksters, a title you seem to embrace with relish.

How about this one: http://www.trickedbythelight.com/tbtl/TricksterGod.shtml

May you ultimately find the true light in the Traditional Catholic Church. We can't convince you of truth, you must see it yourself. We can pray that you do so.

Thank you Nicolas. Yes my real name is Bruce Ferguson. I don't mind people knowing who I am and I do own up to what I do or have done...I would think that is important and if you think about it, that authenticity should speak volumes about my intent. Sometimes a cake is just a cake :) I think too if you read the comfort zone words, I am only trying to support the statement of an earlier poster.

I hope that I haven't given the impression that I am a traditional catholic I am not. I have posted earlier that my interest in discussion with Traditional Catholics is to explore the missionary relationship between the church and indigenous peoples over the 2000 year history of the church.

So perhaps if you understand why I am posting within that research interest, it may relieve some of your concerns about me....in any case, I am working through AA-1025 Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle suggested by NihlObstat and will refocus these threads on a discussion of that book...and of course more questions...

Take care Nicolas...look forward to your thoughts on these things.. I have to run to work now.. and will check your website referral above this evening...thanks for the link.

Trickster
Bruce Ferguson

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #46 on:** July 02, 2014, 10:00:37 AM »

Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 2014, 11:34 pm)

I do support the dignity and quality of life for gαy people ... and that is consistent with post-Vatican II Catholic teaching ...

Teachings by whom, exactly? What's notably "consistent" with Vatican II is the ambiguity of your wording: "dignity and quality of life"? What would be the theological and practical consequences?

Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 11:34 pm, continued)

I believe Pope Paul VI set out the frameworks for our church to address the reality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.

What "reality" is that, and what "frameworks" would those be?  I believe you'll find that the investigative authors Rose[1] and Engel[2] separately[0] identified Paul VI's time on the Throne of St. Peter as the flood tide of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity into seminaries--many more than just a handful confined to the most liberal countries or archdioceses. So many that a devout traditional Catholic heterosɛҳuąƖ male--if a man with such a combination of attributes would even be admitted nowadays to any Catholic seminary situated in a Western European culture--who believes he's called to the priesthood, must be extremely careful about choosing a seminary. Consider especially that almost every year's-worth of the U.S. Baby Boom generation (1945--1960) reached the age for choosing their initial institutions of higher learning--whether colleges or seminaries--while Paul VI was sitting as pope. And Paul VI himself openly lamented his belief that
the "smoke of Satan" had entered the Vatican, thus the Church, during that time.

Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 11:34 pm, continued)

I do not believe in a hard line opposition to brothers, sisters and transgendered people,

Among traditional Catholics, "brothers" and "sisters" refer only to one's own siblings and to members of religious orders--many of whom would've taken vows of chastity--and is never used as a deferential collective term for gαys, lesbians and the transgendered abominations.

Your use of language is consistent with being a troll (as Neil Obstat alerted us early on), albeit unexpectedly for the Homintern[3], from 1 of your own Web page's listed "Communities", known as the "CS Queer Home". Thus it's not merely "a bit of an insinuation here"; it's at least a tentative conclusion.

Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 11:34 pm, concluded)

not loving them, denies the ability to build a trust and allow them to look from their hearts at the invitation of Our Lord, I do not believe that condemnation (of which I am not qualified to do) is not witihin my ability, my only ability is to love the least of my bretheren.

You must have written this last paragraph with intense feeling, because it's a confusing mess, ending as it does with a double negative that's inconsistent with what you obviously seem to believe.

As with other samples from your writing (above), "denies the ability to build a trust" reads like feelings-obsessed New-Agism, but that would probably be "consistent" with Vatican II. Sooo, should we just delete anything from the Old & New Testaments that would distress the GLBT infidels as being, um, unwelcoming to them?  To put your beliefs into perspective, could you explain how it could be that you claim to be a "Catholic", but paradoxically "not qualified" to "condemn" a social behavior or practice that's "condemn[ed]" in the Bible?

-------
Note 0: Isn't it simply fascinating that neither "Michael_S._Rose" nor "Randy_Engel" are valid pages in Wikipedia, nor does the corresponding Wikipedia search option find pages for them (e.g.: under fuller or more formal names), to which they should be entitled as published authors of controversial books. Did Wikipedia purge them, e.g., on charges of being "purveyors of hate speech", hmmm?

Note 1: Michael S. Rose 2002: Goodbye! Good Men: How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations from the Priesthood. (And scared away many of the rest, I suspect, once they figured out what was going on.)

Note 2: Randy Engel 2006: The Rite of Sodomy: ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and the Roman Catholic Church[/i], vol. 1 of what seems now to be 5 vols.

Note 3: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homintern>. It's a word (following the model of "ComIntern") that, alas, is worth being revived--never mind Wikipedia's claim that it's obsolete.

trickster · « **Reply #47 on:** July 02, 2014, 11:32:13 AM »

Quote from: cassini

Quote from: trickster
I am very curious about the term Traditional Catholics...I first came across that term in Catholic Answers...and I believe that they are fitting a traditional catholic framework in the post-vatican II church. What is a traditional catholic within the thinking and conversations here on CathInfo?

trickster

Here is my description trickster. The best people who understand and can describe what a traditional Catholic is are those who lived before Vatican II and more so those who lived in a very Catholic country (like Ireland prior to Vatican II).

Traditional Catholicism, one could say is pre-Vatican II Catholicism. It included first and foremost all that is contained and taught in the pre-Vatican II catechism, the catechism of Trent so to speak. Mine was the 1952 Bishops of Ireland version, still available here in print. It had/has all the uncompromised teachings of the Catholic Church. The Mass and other liturgies were those developed to perfection in the centuries after Christ.

As pointed out by other posters, the term traditional Catholicism was not used then, simply Catholicism. Post Vatican II Catholicism is so compromised that it is now necessary to use the term ‘traditional Catholicism’ to distinguish between the pre Vatican II Catholicism and the post-Vatican II Catholicism.

Thank you Cassini. I am hearing some very good perspectives that distinguishes "Traditional Catholics" from conservative Catholics in the context of post-council church realities. I think you have an excellent point though on "very Catholic countries" something that as a North American I cannot pretend to understand. I am Catholic in a country where I believe we have always been a minority, except in the Province or State (depending on who you talk to) of Quebec. And they were influenced by the Gallic Catholic Church of France, which is something else I need to learn about...anyways, yes, I appreciate your point and it clarifies the distinguishing differences.

I am 57 now so I do remember the church when I was little kid but I also grew up with the changes and remember when we switched from recieiving communion the traditional way and the way we currently recieve Our Lord in our hands standing up. I am "down" with either personally...but yeah, I lived the changes just as I imagine you did.

When I was a kid though in Catholic School, we were taught by the Ursiline Nuns and there was one old nun who wore the old habit and the rest of the nuns at our school switched over to the new habit... I was always intrigued by this lonely figure, I remember her walking back and forth from the convent to the morning Mass...living out her days in the "traditional Catholic" way. I always thought it was a mean streak of VAtican II to deny those (like elderly and seniors) the only mass they ever knew..that should of been more slowly transitioned. I think that is and was a mistake of Vatican II...

Anyways, thanks for your insight I do reflect on positive sharing and statements such as yours....take care for now.

Trickster
Bruce Ferguson

trickster · « **Reply #48 on:** July 02, 2014, 11:36:43 AM »

Quote from: AlligatorDicax

Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 2014, 11:34 pm)
I do support the dignity and quality of life for gαy people ... and that is consistent with post-Vatican II Catholic teaching ...

Teachings by whom, exactly? What's notably "consistent" with Vatican II is the ambiguity of your wording: "dignity and quality of life"? What would be the theological and practical consequences?

Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 11:34 pm, continued)
I believe Pope Paul VI set out the frameworks for our church to address the reality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.

What "reality" is that, and what "frameworks" would those be?  I believe you'll find that the investigative authors Rose[1] and Engel[2] separately[0] identified Paul VI's time on the Throne of St. Peter as the flood tide of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity into seminaries--many more than just a handful confined to the most liberal countries or archdioceses. So many that a devout traditional Catholic heterosɛҳuąƖ male--if a man with such a combination of attributes would even be admitted nowadays to any Catholic seminary situated in a Western European culture--who believes he's called to the priesthood, must be extremely careful about choosing a seminary. Consider especially that almost every year's-worth of the U.S. Baby Boom generation (1945--1960) reached the age for choosing their initial institutions of higher learning--whether colleges or seminaries--while Paul VI was sitting as pope. And Paul VI himself openly lamented his belief that
the "smoke of Satan" had entered the Vatican, thus the Church, during that time.

Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 11:34 pm, continued)
I do not believe in a hard line opposition to brothers, sisters and transgendered people,

Among traditional Catholics, "brothers" and "sisters" refer only to one's own siblings and to members of religious orders--many of whom would've taken vows of chastity--and is never used as a deferential collective term for gαys, lesbians and the transgendered abominations.

Your use of language is consistent with being a troll (as Neil Obstat alerted us early on), albeit unexpectedly for the Homintern[3], from 1 of your own Web page's listed "Communities", known as the "CS Queer Home". Thus it's not merely "a bit of an insinuation here"; it's at least a tentative conclusion.

Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 11:34 pm, concluded)
not loving them, denies the ability to build a trust and allow them to look from their hearts at the invitation of Our Lord, I do not believe that condemnation (of which I am not qualified to do) is not witihin my ability, my only ability is to love the least of my bretheren.

You must have written this last paragraph with intense feeling, because it's a confusing mess, ending as it does with a double negative that's inconsistent with what you obviously seem to believe.

As with other samples from your writing (above), "denies the ability to build a trust" reads like feelings-obsessed New-Agism, but that would probably be "consistent" with Vatican II. Sooo, should we just delete anything from the Old & New Testaments that would distress the GLBT infidels as being, um, unwelcoming to them?  To put your beliefs into perspective, could you explain how it could be that you claim to be a "Catholic", but paradoxically "not qualified" to "condemn" a social behavior or practice that's "condemn[ed]" in the Bible?

-------
Note 0: Isn't it simply fascinating that neither "Michael_S._Rose" nor "Randy_Engel" are valid pages in Wikipedia, nor does the corresponding Wikipedia search option find pages for them (e.g.: under fuller or more formal names), to which they should be entitled as published authors of controversial books. Did Wikipedia purge them, e.g., on charges of being "purveyors of hate speech", hmmm?

Note 1: Michael S. Rose 2002: Goodbye! Good Men: How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations from the Priesthood. (And scared away many of the rest, I suspect, once they figured out what was going on.)

Note 2: Randy Engel 2006: The Rite of Sodomy: ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and the Roman Catholic Church[/i], vol. 1 of what seems now to be 5 vols.

Note 3: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homintern>. It's a word (following the model of "ComIntern") that, alas, is worth being revived--never mind Wikipedia's claim that it's obsolete.

OMG AlligatorDicax:) I will need some time to respond to your post... I thank gyou so much for taking the time to write to me. I will have to wait till I get some time later today or tonight to go through your statements....

Cheerz for now.

trickster
Bruce Ferguson

trickster · « **Reply #49 on:** July 02, 2014, 12:13:29 PM »

Quote from: AlligatorDicax

Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 2014, 11:34 pm)
I do support the dignity and quality of life for gαy people ... and that is consistent with post-Vatican II Catholic teaching ...

Teachings by whom, exactly? What's notably "consistent" with Vatican II is the ambiguity of your wording: "dignity and quality of life"? What would be the theological and practical consequences?

Well the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops has come out with statements (and I would have to go over their references) that while the church does not support same sex marriage, it supports the dignity of life for the GLBT community. This means that same sex couples should share the same benefits (i.e pensions, etc.).... I don't know if the American Bishops conference has said the same thing. Also, like I said I am sure that Pope Paul VI wrote a paper on it, and that would also argue the point that we - as Catholics - still believe that God loves all people and the process of conversion is the same for all of us.

I can't pretend to answer any theological consequences other than to quote Mother Theresa who said that it was not her that converted people but the Holy Spirit...I interpret that to mean that it is my job to show the gospel of Our Lord in showing love and let God do the rest. I need to be here and try and explain what it is that I believe in the original joy of the kerygma proclamation...and I do believe it is my duty to pray for people that I meet. I do not believe it is my job to condemn or judge; rather discern and be very clear on where I stand...

Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 11:34 pm, continued)
I believe Pope Paul VI set out the frameworks for our church to address the reality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.

What "reality" is that, and what "frameworks" would those be?  I believe you'll find that the investigative authors Rose[1] and Engel[2] separately[0] identified Paul VI's time on the Throne of St. Peter as the flood tide of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity into seminaries--many more than just a handful confined to the most liberal countries or archdioceses. So many that a devout traditional Catholic heterosɛҳuąƖ male--if a man with such a combination of attributes would even be admitted nowadays to any Catholic seminary situated in a Western European culture--who believes he's called to the priesthood, must be extremely careful about choosing a seminary. Consider especially that almost every year's-worth of the U.S. Baby Boom generation (1945--1960) reached the age for choosing their initial institutions of higher learning--whether colleges or seminaries--while Paul VI was sitting as pope. And Paul VI himself openly lamented his belief that
the "smoke of Satan" had entered the Vatican, thus the Church, during that time.

While your above point is interesting and something I did not know...I don't think it is relevant to my point or your question. You asked me what framework and I mentioned only that I know that Pope Paul VI wrote some form of paper that gave guidance to the clergy on how the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ should be treated within the church. I believe the Catholic Cathechism issued by JP II clarifies my points...after all it is the catholic catechism of JP II that I am following.

Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 11:34 pm, continued)
I do not believe in a hard line opposition to brothers, sisters and transgendered people,

Among traditional Catholics, "brothers" and "sisters" refer only to one's own siblings and to members of religious orders--many of whom would've taken vows of chastity--and is never used as a deferential collective term for gαys, lesbians and the transgendered abominations.

So is James the brother of Jesus according to your definition? That is an interesting use of the term brother and sister and thank you for pointing that out to me. I guess I am more liberal in the term cause siblings are people I am connected to in creation. In an indigenous context we include our extended families, adopted families and so forth.. I also use it to describe people I love of Moslem background, Buddhist and even atheist background. In showing love by showing inclusion does not mean that I agree or believe in what they believe.

Your use of language is consistent with being a troll (as Neil Obstat alerted us early on), albeit unexpectedly for the Homintern[3], from 1 of your own Web page's listed "Communities", known as the "CS Queer Home". Thus it's not merely "a bit of an insinuation here"; it's at least a tentative conclusion.

Again, I am at a loss with the use of Troll. Neil Obstat has been awesome in pointing out some sources to me and I am working through AA 1025 right now...Creation Spirituality is a gathering place for those who connect with the thinking of Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox and the notion of rebalancing Christianity in taking back its ecological roots....there are also postmodern nuns, green nuns, earth literacy theologies, liberationist (note not necessarly liberation) theologies such as queer, green, feminist and so forth that those theologians are looking at as lenses to dig deeper into the message of our faith. I enjoy thinkers and ideas, so that is why I talk to everyone. I have a great deal to learn from you and from traditional catholics because after all traditional catholics in my family include my mother, grandmother and so forth. So there is a very authentic place in me for this discussion.

Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 11:34 pm, concluded)
not loving them, denies the ability to build a trust and allow them to look from their hearts at the invitation of Our Lord, I do not believe that condemnation (of which I am not qualified to do) is not witihin my ability, my only ability is to love the least of my bretheren.

You must have written this last paragraph with intense feeling, because it's a confusing mess, ending as it does with a double negative that's inconsistent with what you obviously seem to believe.

:) Well I could of been on a roll! Double negatives, get used to it my friend, my grammar is autrocious! But my meaning is sincere. You know that you do have a chance to witness to share about Jesus when someone gets to the point of trusting you. I just don't see how taking on an anti-gαy stance will get one to the point of talking. Many gαy people know me and I love them very much. Many gαy people have a relationship with God and pray and struggle with their sɛҳuąƖity as it is not easy for them. The last thing people need is to be judged, no my choice is to build trust, find common ground, have a conversation and to share, correct and nourish in a good way. But that is just my own style, it is a style not everyone will feel comfortable with...there are as many styles as people...

As with other samples from your writing (above), "denies the ability to build a trust" reads like feelings-obsessed New-Agism, but that would probably be "consistent" with Vatican II. Sooo, should we just delete anything from the Old & New Testaments that would distress the GLBT infidels as being, um, unwelcoming to them?  To put your beliefs into perspective, could you explain how it could be that you claim to be a "Catholic", but paradoxically "not qualified" to "condemn" a social behavior or practice that's "condemn[ed]" in the Bible?

Judge not that ye not be judged (Mt.7:1) . Look, there is nothing New Age about love. Jesus forgave but also said go and sin no more, did he not? Also what the church binds on earth is bound in heaven...what about the Good Samaritan who stopped for an infidel in his own culture. What about Jesus and the apostles hanging out with some pretty interesting characters, what about the fact that the apostles included a tax collector...We can all stand up on the pulpit and denounce each other and all that we do is create new lines of division. What my style is about is simply one of showing kindness, love, etc. and emotional support for people, waiting and following the Holy Spirit's lead on when to talk to someone and acknowledge and honor that person's free will to choose or not choose to be one with the Creator (thought you like that New Age jargon :) my job again is only to witness not to convert as that is a personal thing for the person him or herself. We are all in a life long process of conversion...are conversation in many ways is a process of conversion.

Anyways, I hope those are a few thoughts that I hope you reflect upon and get back to me on. Remember you and i are equal in the eyes of our Lord, so I think we should show the respect that we must have for all of our brothers and sisters in the church.

Trickster
Bruce Ferguson

-------
Note 0: Isn't it simply fascinating that neither "Michael_S._Rose" nor "Randy_Engel" are valid pages in Wikipedia, nor does the corresponding Wikipedia search option find pages for them (e.g.: under fuller or more formal names), to which they should be entitled as published authors of controversial books. Did Wikipedia purge them, e.g., on charges of being "purveyors of hate speech", hmmm?

Note 1: Michael S. Rose 2002: Goodbye! Good Men: How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations from the Priesthood. (And scared away many of the rest, I suspect, once they figured out what was going on.)

Note 2: Randy Engel 2006: The Rite of Sodomy: ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and the Roman Catholic Church[/i], vol. 1 of what seems now to be 5 vols.

Note 3: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homintern>. It's a word (following the model of "ComIntern") that, alas, is worth being revived--never mind Wikipedia's claim that it's obsolete.

Hi AlligatorDiCax. Maybe you can get me up to speed, what is a troll in the context of the CathInfo site...to me it was a mythical character hanging out under neath bridges...

I am not sure how to respond to the software on this site...so I will try and address your statements in the body of your post. I hope that will work...so let's give it a try. Scroll up :)

trickster · « **Reply #50 on:** July 02, 2014, 12:15:18 PM »

AlligatorDiCar? Forgot your handle, sorry....yeah, my posting to your post worked...you just have to read within the quoted section your statement which will be followed by mine. I wasn't sure how to work the software piece of this site...but I think you will be able to follow my answers.

Bruce

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #51 on:** July 02, 2014, 12:20:04 PM »

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 12:36 pm)

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 am)
Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 2014, 11:34 pm)
I do support the dignity and quality of life for gαy people ... and that is consistent with post-Vatican II Catholic teaching ...

Teachings by whom, exactly?
[....]
never mind Wikipedia's claim that it's obsolete.

OMG AlligatorDicax:) I will need some time to respond to your post...  I thank gyou so much for taking the time to write to me. I will have to wait till I get some time later today or tonight to go through your statements....

One way to show your thanks would be to not waste network bandwidth--nor space on Matthew's server(s)--by quoting my entire message (nor anyone else's longish message) when you've already decided that your response is not going to address any specific point that it (i.e.: any longish message) presents.

As a grammatical aside, is there some reason that you consider a period (elsewhere called a full-stop) somehow inadequate, and so use ellipses instead, thus creating ambiguity in quotations about whether some text was edited out--and by whom?  Don't you know when you're ending your own sentences?

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #52 on:** July 02, 2014, 12:20:30 PM »

Quote from: trickster

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta
Quote from: Lighthouse
Hey, Mr. Ferguson, is this you?
Matthew Fox-No thanks!

Do you believe in Original Sin?

What's that "queer home" you sponsor?

Does it have anything to do with this picture on the site?

Sisters from Hell

You need to go frolic among your own.

ruh roh.

If this is you, Mr. Ferguson, and if indeed you are in earnest pursuit of truth, charitable correction is mandated by the Father, so buckle up.

Indeed PerEvangelicals Dicta...but I think you would agree authentic correction should be based on facts...there was a bit of an insinuation here in the way Lighthouse phrased his postings....I think you will also note that I have been very open as to what I think and for sure I am open to being challenged, all of us should be ready to go out of our comfort zone. So seat belts fastened my friend..

Trickster
Bruce Ferguson

In reading your responses to all, you win the award fo most polite Cathinfo forum heretic :dancing-banana:

You seem to have been on a truth quest for many years - He will not fail you, that's what brought you here, and perhaps to other traditional Catholic resources.
Big picture-wise, "traditional" Catholicism is the fullness of Truth and the only religion. All other cults (the novus ordo included) are merely parts of truth, at best. You are intelligent enough to know that, ultimately, there can only be one Truth. By it's very definition, truth cannot be in conflict, because the law of non-contradiction is the bedrock of first principles of metaphysics. Only Catholicism holds this completely and entirely. It is magnificent in this regard!
Cults select what they want to believe in, not using natural law for objective study, so their manifestos reflect disorder and dysfunction, serving man and emotion, not God.

Thank you for your gentlemanly demeanor, Mr. Ferguson. I pray you will continue to answer His call.

Quote

Luke 11:9
And I say to you, Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.

ps. I presume there's an innocent and interesting story why you choose to use forum name "trickster", but it conveys deceit.

trickster · « **Reply #53 on:** July 02, 2014, 12:24:36 PM »

Quote from: AlligatorDicax

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 12:36 pm)
Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 am)
Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 2014, 11:34 pm)
I do support the dignity and quality of life for gαy people ... and that is consistent with post-Vatican II Catholic teaching ...

Teachings by whom, exactly?
[....]
never mind Wikipedia's claim that it's obsolete.

OMG AlligatorDicax:) I will need some time to respond to your post...  I thank gyou so much for taking the time to write to me. I will have to wait till I get some time later today or tonight to go through your statements....

One way to show your thanks would be to not waste network bandwidth--nor space on Matthew's server(s)--by quoting my entire message (nor anyone else's longish message) when you've already decided that your response is not going to address any specific point that it (i.e.: any longish message) presents.

As a grammatical aside, is there some reason that you consider a period (elsewhere called a full-stop) somehow inadequate, and so use ellipses instead, thus creating ambiguity in quotations about whether some text was edited out--and by whom?  Don't you know when you're ending your own sentences?

the
In terms of bandwidth, fair enough. How do you approach responding to long postings? The only thing I can think of (and give me credit as someone who is approaching 60 that remembered a world before personal computers and internet :) is to write all the points down and respond once...and that works for me as well.

Bruce Ferguson
trickster

trickster · « **Reply #54 on:** July 02, 2014, 12:39:27 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Quote from: trickster
Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta
Quote from: Lighthouse
Hey, Mr. Ferguson, is this you?
Matthew Fox-No thanks!

Do you believe in Original Sin?

What's that "queer home" you sponsor?

Does it have anything to do with this picture on the site?

Sisters from Hell

You need to go frolic among your own.

ruh roh.

If this is you, Mr. Ferguson, and if indeed you are in earnest pursuit of truth, charitable correction is mandated by the Father, so buckle up.

Indeed PerEvangelicals Dicta...but I think you would agree authentic correction should be based on facts...there was a bit of an insinuation here in the way Lighthouse phrased his postings....I think you will also note that I have been very open as to what I think and for sure I am open to being challenged, all of us should be ready to go out of our comfort zone. So seat belts fastened my friend..

Trickster
Bruce Ferguson

In reading your responses to all, you win the award fo most polite Cathinfo forum heretic :dancing-banana:

You seem to have been on a truth quest for many years - He will not fail you, that's what brought you here, and perhaps to other traditional Catholic resources.
Big picture-wise, "traditional" Catholicism is the fullness of Truth and the only religion. All other cults (the novus ordo included) are merely parts of truth, at best. You are intelligent enough to know that, ultimately, there can only be one Truth. By it's very definition, truth cannot be in conflict, because the law of non-contradiction is the bedrock of first principles of metaphysics. Only Catholicism holds this completely and entirely. It is magnificent in this regard!
Cults select what they want to believe in, not using natural law for objective study, so their manifestos reflect disorder and dysfunction, serving man and emotion, not God.

Thank you for your gentlemanly demeanor, Mr. Ferguson. I pray you will continue to answer His call.
Quote

Luke 11:9
And I say to you, Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.

ps. I presume there's an innocent and interesting story why you choose to use forum name "trickster", but it conveys deceit.

Well thank you. I have never been called a heretic in such a loving manner. I appreciate it. I don't take offence either because what I have learned by Conservative Catholics on Catholic Answers and Catholics in this page are not being mean, but being very clear in the parameters of their views of the true faith. I have not hidden the fact that I am not only a novus ordo Catholic but a bit of a progressive Catholic within that order...so in a traditional catholc world view I am way off the mark.

Now, having said that , what we can do is stop talking, we can stop building trust, we can label each other. I have also been warned by Traditional Catholics on Catholic Answers to have nothing to do with those who deny Vatican II, but it seems to me that misunderstanding only builds when there is no conversation, that the "them-us" scenar io builds false understanding. I find the traditional mass and a lot of what Pius X Society says as very beautiful. I find this becasue i have not labelled my brothers and sisters who, in a matter of conscience and conviction have not pursued the post-conciliar church in favour of the way things have progressed over the period prior to Vatican II.

That is my spirit, I am open to listen. At the end of the day I am free to choose, and I am free to choose wrongly. And as an authentic being I will tell you what I choose and why, that is why I use my real name because I don't say one thing under a handle and another thing in reality. I am a simple person, so I like keeping my life simple.

As for the term "trickster"yes it is problematic because of the western paradigm about trickster and how they were directly related to the devil. In indigenous culture, the english word trickster has very different meaning...the coyote, the raven and other admired animals in the indigenous world is about transformation, whcih to me was an aboriginl expression of conversion, hence I took the name with love, without realizing how culturally it would be interpreted....so the fact that I have to explain this over and over again, has both reminded me why I chose the name and it has also helped other people to realize there is a world beyond the western world that does not share the same symbolism as western symbolism...

I look forward to your input, I appreciate your total honestly and directness, you are someone I think I can have a good conversation with, a good learning experience with and someone I know will try and see what I am say for what I am saying, you have already showed me that... and yes, keep your absolutely pure honesty happening.. being called one fo the most polite heretics brought a smile to my face...

Bruce

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #55 on:** July 02, 2014, 01:22:32 PM »

And in the interim, you quoted my entire posting again, despite again adding nothing substantive. It had been my only [expletives deleted] follow-up in the entire topic; don't you think my name and time-of-day would've been enough for other readers to figure out who you were responding to?

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 1:13 pm)

I am not sure how to respond to the software on this site... so

So take the time to learn. It's pretty simple, if you take the time to think about it just a little.

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 1:13 pm)

I will try and address your statements in the body of your post. I hope that will work... so let's give it a try.

[Expletives deleted] nooo!

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 1:15 pm)

yeah, my posting to your post worked... you just have to read within the quoted section your statement which will be followed by mine.

An excellent example of something that should never be done--especially in this case--desite discovering that you can do it.

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 1:15 pm)

I wasn't sure how to work the software piece of this site...

So learn how!

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 1:15 pm)

but I think you will be able to follow my answers.

Pay close attention, [expletives deleted]: I know perfectly well what I  wrote and what I  didn't write--I wrote & posted it just a few hours ago. What matters in your charging ahead in your operational ignorance to abuse the formatting features of this forum, and editing the text plainly identified as mine--i.e.: written by me only--is that by completely failing to distinguish your own remarks sentence-by-sentence, people who excerpt only that 1 posting will see my handle attached, and the words boxed in, formatting that strongly indicates that your GLBT-justifying text--with which I strongly disagree--was instead written by me. Most egregiously closest-enclosed by the box labelled "AlligatorDicax said" are words that are, in fact,your words: "Many gαy people know me and I love them very much." An abuse of posting to CathInfo to which I strongly object.

I hereby request--and will also request separately--that Matthew remove that 1:13 pm posting, pronto (to the extent consistent with his existing responsibilities), on grounds of unjustifiable "damage to reputation": mine.

trickster · « **Reply #56 on:** July 02, 2014, 01:29:05 PM »

OK. I am figuring out the misunderstanding created by my postings on the Creation Spirituality Communities. If you click the following link

http://originalblessing.ning.com/groups/group/listForContributor?user=03zeo6cc0sj8h

That will bring you to a page that outlines the 8 communities on Creation Spirituality that I participated in. I did not create them, I only participated in 6 of them. There should be two other communities that are my creations; (1) Aboriginal Theology and (2) Birthing an Aboriginal Cosmic Mass in Canada.

You will be able to see that I am very comfortable and even to the "left" of the novus ordo .... with my conversation with post modern thinkers and theologians...I also attended the Vancouver School of Theology which is an post modern theological school.

So I thank the posters who brought this up thinking that I created gαy websites and so forth, and I trust that this will clear that piece up.

Trickster
Bruce Ferguson

trickster · « **Reply #57 on:** July 02, 2014, 01:35:56 PM »

Quote from: AlligatorDicax

And in the interim, you quoted my entire posting again, despite again adding nothing substantive. It had been my only [expletives deleted] follow-up in the entire topic; don't you think my name and time-of-day would've been enough for other readers to figure out who you were responding to?

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 1:13 pm)
I am not sure how to respond to the software on this site... so

So take the time to learn. It's pretty simple, if you take the time to think about it just a little.

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 1:13 pm)
I will try and address your statements in the body of your post. I hope that will work... so let's give it a try.

[Expletives deleted] nooo!

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 1:15 pm)
yeah, my posting to your post worked... you just have to read within the quoted section your statement which will be followed by mine.

An excellent example of something that should never be done--especially in this case--desite discovering that you can do it.

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 1:15 pm)
I wasn't sure how to work the software piece of this site...

So learn how!

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 1:15 pm)
but I think you will be able to follow my answers.

Pay close attention, [expletives deleted]: I know perfectly well what I  wrote and what I  didn't write--I wrote & posted it just a few hours ago. What matters in your charging ahead in your operational ignorance to abuse the formatting features of this forum, and editing the text plainly identified as mine--i.e.: written by me only--is that by completely failing to distinguish your own remarks sentence-by-sentence, people who excerpt only that 1 posting will see my handle attached, and the words boxed in, formatting that strongly indicates that your GLBT-justifying text--with which I strongly disagree--was instead written by me. Most egregiously closest-enclosed by the box labelled "AlligatorDicax said" are words that are, in fact,your words: "Many gαy people know me and I love them very much." An abuse of posting to CathInfo to which I strongly object.

I hereby request--and will also request separately--that Matthew remove that 1:13 pm posting, pronto (to the extent consistent with his existing responsibilities), on grounds of unjustifiable "damage to reputation": mine.

Hello Matthew. Yes,AligatordiCax is correct on this. My responses, given in good intention, appear when posted as his statements and clearly this not the case. I do apologize to Alligator but I hope that there is also a bit of patience for me to learn the system. Matthew, would you consider putting some kind of training video for those old guys like me that grew up before the age of internet? Thank you.

So, I support AlligatorDiCax in his request. Thanks for YOUR patience with me.

Bruce Ferguson
trickster

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #58 on:** July 02, 2014, 02:04:18 PM »

You're getting a taste of 'absolute honesty' in AlligatorDicax's responses - right between the eyes (that's a compliment, AD). There are others just as direct. You have excellent instincts, in that you expressed an understanding of this style of address, as being 'very clear' vs. 'mean'. Actually it's one of the top reasons I like this forum, but there are some who take these kinds of responses personally and lash out in frustration, misundertanding the intent. That reaction shuts down civil discourse and most importantlly for this forum, edification / education aborted for argument. Pride afflicts us all.

The psychology of forums is very interesting!

Nickolas · « **Reply #59 on:** July 02, 2014, 08:12:29 PM »

Trickster, people who create a web page such as yours is on a recruiting mission to convince others to "learn" what you have "learned", using a gentlemanly demeanor. History aside, your formation to "learn" was faulty from the beginning by studying in the polluted atmosphere of a liberal theology institution. Having done so, it is understandable and tragic that your mind has embraced lies of the devil. You are jumping off from the wrong starting point as you have not slightest understanding, in my opinion, of why Our Blessed Lord died for you and so called indigenous peoples.

There is no soft middle when discussing truth with regard to the Traditional Catholic Church. You still have not addressed your comment that "we should all be ready to get out of our comfort zone". This statement from someone who has embraced liberal theology is an attack on God himself, on His truth, on His Church.

I challenge you , Bruce, to get out of your comfort zone that you have created to protect yourself from God's almighty Church. Don't ask us to do likewise, as to do so is simply a recruiting statement to draw others into a pit of darkness and evil. Like St. Francis did with the missions he built in California, you may one day be a force to draw others to the Traditional Church. One can only pray that it be so.

I reject your reason given for adopting the moniker of "trickster", as it does have a direct and clear meaning and you cannot dismiss its meaning as being part of a "paradigm". Don't label yourself, but as a man who is filled with original sin and whose soul is destined for hell until you embrace the faith of our Blessed Lord. Now is the time and perhaps that is why our Blessed Lord has drawn you here. Please don't twitter it away on meaningless historical study about the men of old and their relationship with the Church. Consider your own soul. Back up and study the Church as it should be studied, not in the liberal vein.

No, Bruce, you are not a naive man who is on a study mission to "understand" truth, but to concoct a version of your truth in which you can build into the belief systems of others. Your journey to truth will and can only begin once you realize that what you have "learned" thus far about the Catholic Church is a big lie. The indigenous peoples who are the subject of your historical investigation are dead. Their progeny lives today in a much different time than days of old. The dicendants of the "tribes" are working in cities, paying bills, having kids, and perhaps even going to church somewhere. What matters is NOW, not then.