Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Computers, Technology, Websites => Topic started by: Kaesekopf on November 14, 2012, 10:03:59 PM
-
Sup CathInfo,
I thought I'd let you all know about FE's latest thread.
It's kinda absurd.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3454922.0.html
Christianity and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity
Apparently, two ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ men can morally cuddle on the couch watching a movie.
Enjoy.
-
Honestly, I'm surprised the idea isn't receiving more resistance. Let's not pretend the entire forum is OK with it over there, but it's obviously sinful behaviour. Three or four people arguing for it is far, far too many (of course even one person would be!).
I don't really care what motivated you to post it here, but why not join in and offer a little fraternal correction? Spiritual works of mercy and all...
-
It was difficult to read that thread. Disgusting.
People like Melkite shouldn't be tolerated there, bot Vox seems a bit soft on gαys herself.
-
"Sup"
"Kinda"
-
Not surprised to see Vox on that thread. I've always thought of her as a fag in a woman's body. If that makes sense. She's as bent as they come.
-
This is the future of traditionalism under the neotrads.
Don't doubt it.
In a few decades the "official Church" is going to be openly pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ - what do you think the SSPX is going to do about it?
What will they be able do to about it, if they're absorbed by modernist Rome?
Absolutely nothing.
The movement is being subverted, now, as we speak.
-
Sup CathInfo,
Apparently, two ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ men can morally cuddle on the couch watching a movie.
Enjoy.
Sup, Kaesekopf --
Hey................. not in my house!!
(http://www.free-emoticons.com/images/animated-emoticons/014.gif)(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRB1b6sXROeTsC2gUsY3mUSDTREDhf0FQFeqDMYxHrtNeTvsxWl)
-
Not surprised to see Vox on that thread. I've always thought of her as a fag in a woman's body. If that makes sense. She's as bent as they come.
Do you think that's an acceptable way for a Christian to talk about someone else? Love thy neighbour and all that...
-
This is the future of traditionalism under the neotrads.
Don't doubt it.
In a few decades the "official Church" is going to be openly pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ - what do you think the SSPX is going to do about it?
What will they be able do to about it, if they're absorbed by modernist Rome?
Absolutely nothing.
The movement is being subverted, now, as we speak.
I've met two trad priests who were extremelyvery feminine.
I think the NO is already accepting of it. Didn't the Pope issue a statement that c*nd*ms were OK for male prostitutes?
edit: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/20/pope-says-condoms-may-be-ok-in-some-circuмstances/
I can't believe he did not speak out against prostitution, sodomy, the exploitation of sex workers, underage sex slaves, instead he says they can use a condom, it's so perverse.
-
Sup CathInfo,
I thought I'd let you all know about FE's latest thread.
It's kinda absurd.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3454922.0.html
Christianity and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity
Apparently, two ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ men can morally cuddle on the couch watching a movie.
Enjoy.
FE has morphed into a "catholic" version of America.
Complete with censoring all critical thought, enforcing political correctness, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ worship with a bunch of Marxists-leaning, hipster-doofus liberals and old lesbian harpies running the show.
Have you turned on the televitz lately and seen all these "gαy" and lipstick/mascara smothered wymyn politicians out there pontificating on morality and "fairness" these days? It's truly nauseating.
Somtimes I believe we need nothing short of an Islamic-style revolution to chase these queers back in the closet where they belong and cover these wretches faces and force them to shut the hell up.
Lord what a monstrocity america has become.
-
This is the future of traditionalism under the neotrads.
Don't doubt it.
In a few decades the "official Church" is going to be openly pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ - what do you think the SSPX is going to do about it?
What will they be able do to about it, if they're absorbed by modernist Rome?
Absolutely nothing.
The movement is being subverted, now, as we speak.
I'll go further than that. I can see the day when they will seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus and many of the discipiles were actually gαy. :rolleyes:
-
Not surprised to see Vox on that thread. I've always thought of her as a fag in a woman's body. If that makes sense. She's as bent as they come.
Do you think that's an acceptable way for a Christian to talk about someone else? Love thy neighbour and all that...
Oh, please, this woman is an unrepentant public mortal sinner who proudly identifies herself with some of the worst scandalous revolutionary women (Simone Weil). She is no friend of Tradition, despite some of the materials on her website. She has been actively pursuing the destruction of the Faith for several years now and is too proud to restrain herself. She's a disgusting person with evil fruits. When somebody is publicly harming the Faith, Christians are obliged to combat that person's errors, even by attacking that person's credibility through assaults on her person. It is false charity to suggest that we are obliged to assume she has good motives for publicly defending her sin and her insane ideological attacks on the purity of the Faith and of Catholic morals and culture. We are only obliged to assume good motives until we have a probable reason to conclude otherwise. We are well past that point with her. Like most ferocious old damaged feminist shrews, she deals in self-righteous psychological manipulation and self-centered indulgence in observations that are mere products of her own twisted desires. That evil forum needs to be shut down and she needs to make public reparation for her public crimes.
-
As a corollary, shouldn't this sick FE thread be seen as evidence that the entire Indultarian neo-Trad hipster/dork culture that is invading Anglophone Catholic circles is from the devil ? You shall know them by their fruits. Here we have a public mortal sinner who was living in sin with a married man (committing the sin of double adultery, at least that is what we can conclude with moral confidence given cohabitation) running a forum that has come to defending the practice of perverts who identify themselves by their perversion subjecting themselves to unnecessary occasions of one of the sins that cries out to Heaven for Divine vengeance. I may need to read more about moral theology, but it seems to me that the consensus of the theologians would be that she is participating in this sin by cooperation. Thus, would her forum not also be subject to Divine vengeance, since it is the vehicle for said cooperation ?
I know that some who post there are fighting the good fight against the evil spirit that has possessed that forum, but I wonder how prudent it is to admonish the erring brother a third, fourth, or twentieth time. There is no moral obligation to correct those who are evil company. Here the effect of the evil company seems to be more subtle, namely through the inculcation of theological and philosophical error by camaraderie with the mentally and morally deranged (liberals, romantics, sentimentalists, syncretists, &c.), familiarising with them as if they are not harming the Faith and spreading poison. Dear fellow Catholics who post on that forum, I worry about you. Do not allow yourselves to be polluted by the diabolical webs of deceit and hypocritical invective that comes from this work of that forum owner. The fruits of Fisheaters are rotten -- heresy, error, public sin. Wipe the dust off your feet and move on, lest you, too, one day find yourself morally confused and heterodox in belief.
Perhaps what is being demonstrated by Divine Providence is that a woman should not run a traditional Catholic forum, especially not one that presumes to teach others about the Catholic Faith. I look at most of Vox Clamantis's speculations and I believe I see the typical thoughts of a shameless woman poking her head into the affairs of the men and the public world, things she could never adequately engage and fully understand since she is an outsider to them by her sex. "A strong man would be okay with [being manipulated and/or humiliated by his woman]." "A strong man is fine being around 'ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs' and even enjoys their company." "Those gender roles are so outdated/puerile/prudish/Puritanical/hypocritical/warped/etc.. Reality is so much bigger, Catholicism is about balance, maybe you should be more charitable towards me and assume against all evidence that I am of good will." Yep, systematic theology and philosophy were all just systems of control created by insecure men.
If we were to believe the general consensus that seems to inform the comments of the neo-Trad women's knitting circle, we would conclude the following : Real men (who didn't exist before we discovered the modern type) were leaders, that is why they wanted women to boss them around and manipulate them. Real men were so straight that they loved spending time around sodomites; the straighter they are, the more they enjoy the company of perverts. Real men hate ancient laws and moral philosophy and instead love an aesthetic approach to life, one of balance and spontaneity, the sort of environment that can be found on Oprah or at a woman's book club over martinis. Fighting, organising, exploring, commanding, disciplining, hunting, conquering -- these are just the product of boyish insecurity. Real men have no time for these puerile pursuits, which are worthy of being smirked at. Women have seen them in their boys at the playground. They understand the pathetic and animalistic silliness of what drives the world of men. Real men, who know what these women have intuited, want to be liberated from these arcane pressures on the mind, so that they can spend time with "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" fetishists, talk about the meaning of their romantic affairs and how they make them feel over a cocktail, or allow themselves to be led by the level-headed vision of their wives.
This is the sort of insanity that seems to have captured Fisheaters; it's almost like watching a spell take people over when you watch them go along with it. People pretend that there is some substance to that whole line of thinking, but it is nothing more than rebellion against God and nature. There is no need to mysticise or poeticise it, much less encourage it. Ultimately it is the same line of thought that ends in lesbianism and witchcraft, as Bishop Williamson once said. He couldn't be more right. Ultimately, feminism and socialism and democracy and political correctness and the entire modern world are based in hatred of nature and of God the Father, as well as the image of His paternal authority which exists in men. The rebellion of the modern world -- especially feminism -- is an attempt to defeat nature, to subvert it and usurp the throne of paternal authority through artifice, to rob the world of its goods and to find security in the resulting evil peace.
-
Great posts, PereJoseph! You really get to the core of it.
-
There is no moral obligation to correct those who are evil company.
I should have written this differently. I meant to say that there is no moral obligation to subject oneself to evil company in the hope of correcting them. We are taught to flee from bad companions since they are an occasion of sin for us. Bad companions are not merely older boys drinking liquor and spending time with girls; bad companions are also those who subtly undermine our Faith or who subtly introduce perversions into our homes and our minds. Evil writings, evil associations, evil companions -- all are occasions of sin that should be fled as much as possible (according to one's duty of state). Hopefully those who read my post understood what I meant originally.
-
Great posts, PereJoseph! You really get to the core of it.
Yes, I have to admit, PJ nailed it on that one.
-
I didn't know Melkite was still around.
I recall a hot discussion with him and a pagan, where they both were defending evolution. It was a thread about how Bill Nye thought Creationism is bad for children.
His description of how evolution can be reconciled with the idea of original sin really was bizarre and nebulous.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and effeminate behavior is wrong. Effeminacy is a vice.
-
I didn't know Melkite was still around.
I recall a hot discussion with him and a pagan, where they both were defending evolution. It was a thread about how Bill Nye thought Creationism is bad for children.
His description of how evolution can be reconciled with the idea of original sin really was bizarre and nebulous.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and effeminate behavior is wrong. Effeminacy is a vice.
I believe the medical community up until a few years ago described it as a mental disorder......
This is the problem with much of illiberalism and political correctness, it's purely unscientific and on the verge of insanity.
What do you expect from a group of people who claim that grown men having anal sɛҳuąƖ intercourse with one another or many others should be classified as "normal". :rolleyes:
-
As a corollary, shouldn't this sick FE thread be seen as evidence that the entire Indultarian neo-Trad hipster/dork culture that is invading Anglophone Catholic circles is from the devil ?
To be fair, many of the hipsters and dorks in that thread are taking a harder line, and are in fact SSPX-goers.
And after 18 pages or so, decency and common sense seem finally to be winning out, thanks in large part to their efforts.
But FE is rotting, rotting, rotting. It won't be long until I quit going there entirely.
-
If we were to believe the general consensus that seems to inform the comments of the neo-Trad women's knitting circle, we would conclude the following : Real men (who didn't exist before we discovered the modern type) were leaders, that is why they wanted women to boss them around and manipulate them. Real men were so straight that they loved spending time around sodomites; the straighter they are, the more they enjoy the company of perverts. Real men hate ancient laws and moral philosophy and instead love an aesthetic approach to life, one of balance and spontaneity, the sort of environment that can be found on Oprah or at a woman's book club over martinis. Fighting, organising, exploring, commanding, disciplining, hunting, conquering -- these are just the product of boyish insecurity. Real men have no time for these puerile pursuits, which are worthy of being smirked at. Women have seen them in their boys at the playground. They understand the pathetic and animalistic silliness of what drives the world of men. Real men, who know what these women have intuited, want to be liberated from these arcane pressures on the mind, so that they can spend time with "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" fetishists, talk about the meaning of their romantic affairs and how they make them feel over a cocktail, or allow themselves to be led by the level-headed vision of their wives.
That's exactly it. An aspect I thought of but didn't get around to was if I'm going to understand what true male friendship and/or behavior is, I will take the word of straight men who have no reason to deceive themselves over that of a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ who has all the reason in the world to want to bend the rules. It just doesn't make sense to allow them to instruct, re-educate, the rest of us on what normal male behavior is. How do they know?? Normal male behavior is at the core of their struggles!
-
As a corollary, shouldn't this sick FE thread be seen as evidence that the entire Indultarian neo-Trad hipster/dork culture that is invading Anglophone Catholic circles is from the devil ?
To be fair, many of the hipsters and dorks in that thread are taking a harder line, and are in fact SSPX-goers.
And after 18 pages or so, decency and common sense seem finally to be winning out, thanks in large part to their efforts.
But FE is rotting, rotting, rotting. It won't be long until I quit going there entirely.
I am not a hipster, but I know who they are, and I associate with them, and this is true.
They are quite hardline, and attempt to push the pro +Williamson line when they can.
-
I don't really care what motivated you to post it here, but why not join in and offer a little fraternal correction? Spiritual works of mercy and all...
Haha. What if I told you he did just that?
-
Not surprised to see Vox on that thread. I've always thought of her as a fag in a woman's body. If that makes sense. She's as bent as they come.
Do you think that's an acceptable way for a Christian to talk about someone else? Love thy neighbour and all that...
Oh, please, this woman is an unrepentant public mortal sinner who proudly identifies herself with some of the worst scandalous revolutionary women (Simone Weil). She is no friend of Tradition, despite some of the materials on her website. She has been actively pursuing the destruction of the Faith for several years now and is too proud to restrain herself. She's a disgusting person with evil fruits. When somebody is publicly harming the Faith, Christians are obliged to combat that person's errors, even by attacking that person's credibility through assaults on her person. It is false charity to suggest that we are obliged to assume she has good motives for publicly defending her sin and her insane ideological attacks on the purity of the Faith and of Catholic morals and culture. We are only obliged to assume good motives until we have a probable reason to conclude otherwise. We are well past that point with her. Like most ferocious old damaged feminist shrews, she deals in self-righteous psychological manipulation and self-centered indulgence in observations that are mere products of her own twisted desires. That evil forum needs to be shut down and she needs to make public reparation for her public crimes.
You can be orthodox, and defend Catholicism, without using playground language like "fag".
-
You can be orthodox, and defend Catholicism, without using playground language like "fag".
I thumbed this down, not because you're actually wrong, but because I see nothing wrong with colourful and earthy language. If, somewhere, some fag is offended by it, that's probably because he's a fαɢɢօt looking for an excuse to be offended, and not cause he's a pious Catholic man afflicted with unnatural desires and humbly bearing his cross.
-
I thumbed it down because we don't need to be enforcing PC speech codes that forbid derogatory language towards men who are like "wild beasts"
-
In case you missed Matthew's 2 cents from another thread:
That's why I think "fαɢɢօt" is a surprisingly appropriate term for sodomites.
Because they are just waiting to be thrown in the fire (when death comes).
While it could be argued that "gαy" is concise and does the trick (refer to my posts where I prefer "Black" to refer to those of African descent), it also means "happy" and that is misleading.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is nice and scientific, I suppose. But it doesn't carry with it any implication that there is something wrong with them.
Sodomite certainly implies that something is morally wrong with their behavior.
Queer works well, because their inclinations are against nature.
-
I thumbed it down because we don't need to be enforcing PC speech codes that forbid derogatory language towards men who are like "wild beasts"
I understand, but it isn't about being PC.
Look, I agree completely with the Church about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and every other aspect of its moral teaching on sɛҳuąƖ matters. I also believer that, as St. Francis de Sales said, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Out principal concern should be converting sinners, all of them, Of whom I am the first. Language like this will not convert anyone.
-
In case you missed Matthew's 2 cents from another thread:
That's why I think "fαɢɢօt" is a surprisingly appropriate term for sodomites.
Because they are just waiting to be thrown in the fire (when death comes).
While it could be argued that "gαy" is concise and does the trick (refer to my posts where I prefer "Black" to refer to those of African descent), it also means "happy" and that is misleading.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is nice and scientific, I suppose. But it doesn't carry with it any implication that there is something wrong with them.
Sodomite certainly implies that something is morally wrong with their behavior.
Queer works well, because their inclinations are against nature.
I did see it, and I think he is wrong too, for the reason stated above.
-
Intriguing.
From Vox:
That isn't an actual example, but it's the sort of thing I'm talking about. I see that and want to throttle someone. I seriously do. It's more personally infuriating now that ad money is all I have to live on, too. "Gee, THANKS, pal!" is what I think when I see that sort of thing. Man, it makes me mad. "Yeah, we're gonna sell traditional Catholicism like THAT, ya idiot!" "Nevermind me; I don't need to eat!" Grrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3454922.msg33828472.html#msg33828472
-
How many politically correct SWPL types are there interested in Catholicism? Maybe there are some attracted by the smells and bells. As I've said before, for every one of those, there's someone else who's put off Catholicism by uptight political correctness.
-
I thumbed it down because we don't need to be enforcing PC speech codes that forbid derogatory language towards men who are like "wild beasts"
I understand, but it isn't about being PC.
Look, I agree completely with the Church about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and every other aspect of its moral teaching on sɛҳuąƖ matters. I also believer that, as St. Francis de Sales said, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Out principal concern should be converting sinners, all of them, Of whom I am the first. Language like this will not convert anyone.
Sigismund, forget about catching flies with honey - while it may or may not always work with flies, V2 fed everyone honey and all being PC does is send Catholics away by the millions, it does not attract them to conversion. When it comes to today's crisis, honey is the poison which is already easily found every day, everywhere - but has no place on the Catholic menu when it comes to offending or trying to convert queers.
Too much honey causes sickness - in order to cure the sickness, vinegar is needed to purge the system. When I grew up, they were known as "queers" mostly. One thing they are not and never will be is "gαy" - that, after all, is a name queer people labeled themselves with - that fact in and of itself is reason normal people should never use the word "gαy" when referring to queers - because they are queer, not gαy. If this sounds confusing, please look the words up in an *old* dictionary.
The last thing any Catholic on the internet should be concerned about in this day and age is offending queers or those who worry about offending queers - if the queers do not like the term, then repent - or in shame, go back underground and stay there. But using terms queers deem insulting is not a misuse of language, rather, it is being true and clear.
-
How many politically correct SWPL types are there interested in Catholicism? Maybe there are some attracted by the smells and bells. As I've said before, for every one of those, there's someone else who's put off Catholicism by uptight political correctness.
What is SWPL?
-
I thumbed it down because we don't need to be enforcing PC speech codes that forbid derogatory language towards men who are like "wild beasts"
I understand, but it isn't about being PC.
Look, I agree completely with the Church about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and every other aspect of its moral teaching on sɛҳuąƖ matters. I also believer that, as St. Francis de Sales said, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Out principal concern should be converting sinners, all of them, Of whom I am the first. Language like this will not convert anyone.
Sigismund, forget about catching flies with honey - while it may or may not always work with flies, V2 fed everyone honey and all being PC does is send Catholics away by the millions, it does not attract them to conversion. When it comes to today's crisis, honey is the poison which is already easily found every day, everywhere - but has no place on the Catholic menu when it comes to offending or trying to convert queers.
Too much honey causes sickness - in order to cure the sickness, vinegar is needed to purge the system. When I grew up, they were known as "queers" mostly. One thing they are not and never will be is "gαy" - that, after all, is a name queer people labeled themselves with - that fact in and of itself is reason normal people should never use the word "gαy" when referring to queers - because they are queer, not gαy. If this sounds confusing, please look the words up in an *old* dictionary.
The last thing any Catholic on the internet should be concerned about in this day and age is offending queers or those who worry about offending queers - if the queers do not like the term, then repent - or in shame, go back underground and stay there. But using terms queers deem insulting is not a misuse of language, rather, it is being true and clear.
I am not suggesting that we water down Catholic doctrine in the slightest. We can say that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is disordered and that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ sex is a sin. I am suggesting that we will be more effective in calling people involved in sin to repentance if we don't call them names while we are doing it. I understand avoiding gαy becasue it is a term of pride, but what is wrong with simply calling them ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?
-
This is the future of traditionalism under the neotrads.
Don't doubt it.
In a few decades the "official Church" is going to be openly pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ - what do you think the SSPX is going to do about it?
What will they be able do to about it, if they're absorbed by modernist Rome?
Absolutely nothing.
The movement is being subverted, now, as we speak.
I've met two trad priests who were extremelyvery feminine.
I think the NO is already accepting of it. Didn't the Pope issue a statement that c*nd*ms were OK for male prostitutes?
edit: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/20/pope-says-condoms-may-be-ok-in-some-circuмstances/
I can't believe he did not speak out aganst prostitution, sodomy, the exploitation of sex workers, underage sex slaves, instead he says they can use a condom, it's so perverse.
the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are in charge of the biggest Novus ordo parishes. They are in the seminaries preying on young men and drugging gang raping them.
There are so many ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in Novus that they are waiting on sidelines for same sex marriage being a law which wouldl make getting rid of priests who are gαy illegal. Making it a hate law.
-
I'm sure that sspx has its share of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs...
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and pedophiles usually seek out jobs and groups where they can get easy prey. At times, they start with girls and work their way to boys.
Look at Elmo....homo man had "relationship" with 16 year old. They are in politics big time.
-
Yes, they are queer.. and the Novus ordo is overun by them.
And now pseudo-sspx want to join in.
These pretty boys live like hollywood movie stars. The laity does everything even weddings, funerals, hand out eucharist.
The homoclergy go to queer parties exchange porn, etc. queer bars, etc.
This is why they don't take action to protect the Holy Sacrament of marriage or even the priesthood.
-
They are Sodomites and shoud be beaten with Sticks.
But to sort out this issue, look at WHOM is behind ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
Same Usual J E W suspects-from NAMBLA to gαy Lobbying organization.
Larry Kramer
Co-founder of "Act Up," a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ/AIDS activist organization; co-founder of the gαy Men's Health Crisis
Alan Klein
Co-founder of group ACT UP, co-founder of group Queer Nation, National Communications Director and chief spokesperson for the gαy & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation [GLAAD].
Arnie Kantrowitz
Co-founder of the gαy and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation [GLAAD].
Jonathan D. Katz
Founded and chairs the Harvey Milk Institute, the largest queer studies institute in the world. A long time gαy political activist, was a co-founder of Queer Nation.
Harvey Fierstein
Film actor [Mrs. Doubtfire]; well-known gαy activist.
Moisés Kaufman
Playwright and film director [The Laramie Project].
Israel Fishman
Founder of the gαy Liberation Caucus in 1970, now known as the gαy, Lesbian, BisɛҳuąƖ, and Transgendered Round Table.
Bella Abzug
The first members of the U.S. House of Representatives to introduce legislation banning discrimination based on sɛҳuąƖ orientation [1974].
Winnie Stachelberg
Political director, Human Rights Campaign
Michael S. Aronowitz
The New York Log Cabin Republicans.
Tony Kushner
gαy activist; Tony and 1993 Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright.
Len Hirsch
President of the GLBT federal government employees group, GLOBE.
Meg Moritz, Ph.D.
Director and member of the Executive Committee of GLAAD.
Barbara Raab
NBC-TV producer; a "Jєωιѕн lesbian feminist journalist, writer."
David Goodstein
Owner/publisher of the gαy magazine The Advocate; co-founder of the National gαy Rights Lobby.
Kevin Koffler
Editor-in-chief, Genre gαy magazine.
Judy Wieder
Editor-in-chief, The Advocate gαy magazine.
Barney Frank
Member of U.S. Congress; helped create non-discriminatory employment policies in all U.S. federal agencies
Jennifer Einhorn
Communications Director, gαy & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
Evan Wolfson
Senior Staff Attorney, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund -- and -- the executive director of Freedom to Marry.
Allan Ginsburg
Jєωιѕн poet and leading member of North American Man Boy Love Association
Kathy Levinson
American investor and philanthropist; serves on the board of PlanetOut; also on NGLTF Board of Directors.
Roberta Achtenberg
Civil rights lawyer and federal official; appointed as Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity by President Bill Clinton in 1993.
Richard Goldstein
Village Voice writer on gαy culture and politics.
Terry Lobel
Executive director of the National gαy and Lesbian Task Force.
Surina Kahn
American lesbian activist.
Jay Guy Nassberg
Founder of the Lavender Healing Network; a former gαy activist with the the gαy Liberation Front.
Judith Light
Actress, activist for gαy causes.
Rick Rosendall
President, gαy & Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC.
Jack Fritscher
Editor in Chief of Drummer gαy magazine
Fred Hochberg
Deputy administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration; co-chair of the Human Rights Campaign [HRC].
Sarah Schulman
American playwright, novelist, and activist [one of the founders of the Lesbian Avengers, a direct-action lesbian rights organization].
Rex Wockner
Longtime gαy, American journalist who has reported news for the gαy press since 1985.
Alison Bechdel
Cartoonist creator and author of the bi-weekly comic strip "Dykes to Watch Out For."
Charles Kaiser [?] -- author & founding member of National Lesbian and gαy Journalists Association [NLGJA].
Garrett Glaser -- National Lesbian and gαy Journalists Association [NLGJA] national board member.
Ronald Gold -- reporter for Variety; a leader in the fight to overturn the American Psychiatric Association's policy that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is an illness.
Magnus Hirschfeld [d. 1935], early gαy rights activist in Germany; founded one of the first gαy rights organizations, the Scientific Humanitarian Committee; coined the term "transvestism"; fled nαzι Germany.
Michael Berman -- member, Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors.
Mitchell Gold -- HRC Board
Marty Lieberman -- HRC Board
Andy Linsky -- HRC Board
Dana Perlman -- HRC Board
Abby Rubenfeld -- HRC Board
Andrew Tobias -- HRC Board
Lara Schwartz -- Senior Counsel, HRC Heather Wellman -- HRC Field Coordinator
Dan Furmansky -- HRC Senior Field Organizer, West
Sally Green -- HRC Associate Field Director
Robin Margolis, American coordinator of the Bi Women's Cultural Alliance and author [BisɛҳuąƖity: A Practical Guide].
Nancy Alpert [?] -- Treasurer, GLAAD
Judy Gluckstern -- Board of Directors, GLAAD.
Stephen M. Jacoby -- Board of Directors, GLAAD.
Matt Riklin -- Board, GLAAD
Carol Rosenfeld -- Board, GLAAD.
William Weinberger -- Board, GLAAD
Tanya Wexler -- Board, GLAAD.
David Huebner -- GLAAD Counsel.
Ron Schlittler -- Director of Field & Policy, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and gαys [PFLAG].
Craig Ziskin -- Deputy Director of Development, PFLAG.
Debra Weill -- Senior Field & Policy Coordinator, PFLAG.
Dody Goldstein -- Board of Directors, PFLAG.
David Horowitz -- Board of Directors, PFLAG.
Shawn Frank -- Board of Directors, PFLAG.
Leon Weinstein -- Chair, Nominating Committee, PFLAG.
Kate Kendell [?], National Center for Lesbian Rights.
gαyle Rubin -- lesbian author/activist.
Hilary Rosen -- a founding member of the gαy and Lesbian Victory Fund; former board co-chair of the Human Rights Campaign.
Roz Richter, American attorney and activist.
Bob Kunst -- long-time activist in gαy and Jєωιѕн causes."gαy, Lesbian & Straight Education Network" [GLSEN]. Board co-chairs:
Marty Seldman, president "National gαy & Lesbian Task Force" [NGLTF]. Board co-chairs: .....
Rachel Rosen in Santa Fe, N.M
Dave Fleischer -- Director of Training [political training], NGLTF. Craig Hoffman -- Board of Directors, NGLTF.
Beth Zemsky -- Board, NGLTF. Marsha C. Botzer -- Treasurer, NGLTF.
Jeff Levi -- first, Levi was NGTF's lobbyist, early 1980s [NGTF became NGLTF in 1985]. Later, he was NGLTF executive director.
Bill Rubenstein, J.D. '86, developed the ACLU Lesbian and gαy Rights Project
Martin Duberman -- author/historian; founded the Center for Lesbian and gαy Studies at the City University of New York.
Ben Schatz '81, J.D. '85, is executive director of the gαy and Lesbian Medical Foundation.
Kevin Schaub, American; Executive Director and Dean of the Harvey Milk Institute in San Francisco, the world's largest center for queer studies.
Susan Spielman -- principal/head of Common Ground, an education/consulting firm specializing in workplace sɛҳuąƖ orientation education; her company has worked with hundreds of U.S. organizations, helping them to implement domestic partner benefits plans; co-author of the book Straight Talk About gαys in the Workplace.
Gertrude Stein -- wrote the first openly lesbian novel, "Q.E.D.," in 1903, but it was only published posthumously in 1950.
Rikki Streicher (1925-1994), American activist and businesswoman.
Michael Goff -- founded Out magazine in 1992.
Paulette Goodman -- founder of local chapter [Washington D.C.] of PFLAG and served as President of the National PFLAG organization from 1988-1992.
Jeffrey Newman, American, president and COO of the gαy Financial Network; president and CEO of out.com.
Jim Levin -- New York gαy historian.
Barrett Brick -- GLAA [gαy and Lesbian Activists Alliance] Treasurer.
Robin Tyler -- American comedian [born Arlene Chernick] who was the first openly gαy comic in North America; Tyler is also an activist who was the stage producer for the first three gαy marches on Washington and the national protest coordinator for the "Stop Dr. Laura" campaign; she produces women's comedy and music festivals, and operates a lesbian travel-tour company.
Dr. Bruce Voeller [1935?-1994] [?] American gαy rights activist, molecular biologist, physiologist, and AIDS researcher (pioneer in the use of nonoxynol-9 as a spermicide); cofounder and first executive director of the National gαy Task Force; creator of the Mariposa Foundation [an AIDS prevention research organization].
Mark Elderkin [?] -- co-founded gαy.com.
Leroy Aarons -- American professor, journalist, and founder of the National gαy and Lesbian Journalists Association (1990).
Dr. Donald I. Abrams -- American physician, HIV expert, medical marijuana researcher, and past president of the gαy and Lesbian Medical Association.
Johnny Abush (1952-2000) -- [Canadian]; archivist of the International Jєωιѕн GBLT Archives.
Miriam Ben-Shalom [1948- ], American Army Reserves drill sergeant and gαy activist; in 1986 she won a ten-year legal battle with the Reserves when a court ordered her reinstatement; founder of the gαy, Lesbian, and BisɛҳuąƖ Veterans Association [GLBVA] in 1990, serving as its first president.
Larry Brinkin, American gαy activist who brought the first domestic partnership lawsuit [against Southern Pacific Railroad, 1982].
Rob Eichberg, American psychologist, co-creator of National Coming Out Day [October 11th].
Scott Evertz, American; in April 2001, President Bush appointed him to serve as the Director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy [ONAP].
Gene Falk, American business executive; Senior Vice President of the Showtime Digital Media Group; part of the team that launched and marketed the U.S. TV series Queer as Folk; Chair of the Board of Directors of the gαy and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation [GLAAD].
Larry Kessler -- founding director in 1983 of the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts, the largest AIDS support organization in New England.
David Mixner -- gαy activist, political consultant; co-founder of the Municipal Elections Committee of Los Angeles [MECLA], a group of wealthy gαys and lesbians who became influential in local politics; president Bill Clinton's Special Liaison to the gαy-Lesbian Community.
Dan Savage -- American author of gαy-themed books [The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant; Skipping Towards Gomorrah: The Seven Deadly Sins and the Pursuit of Happiness in America] and gαy-themed- sex-advice columnist [Savage Love].
Scott Seomin, American entertainment media coordinator for the gαy & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation [GLAAD].
David Sine [?] -- American CEO of C1TV, the first U.S. gαy and lesbian cable TV network.
SOURCE
-
Look at all the tribal names.
-
In a better society, Melkite would be locked up for his moral degeneracy and for trying to make ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity "normal."
I have been on FE for a while now and have noticed anytime the sodomite question comes out in the open Vox is always eager to defend them, as if she's the white "lady-in-waiting" (instead of knight) for the fairies.
-
I have been on FE for a while now and have noticed anytime the sodomite question comes out in the open Vox is always eager to defend them, as if she's the white "lady-in-waiting" (instead of knight) for the fairies.
There are evil people working on the weak-willed and unintelligent to attack the Catholic Faith among "traditional Catholics."
They rely on liberal mods and site owners to enable them.
Let's recall Clare from IA defended Vox's civil marriage to a married man.
We're dealing with weak-minded or bad-willed liberals on these forums. (and generally inside Tradition as well)
-
There are evil people working on the weak-willed and unintelligent to attack the Catholic Faith among "traditional Catholics."
They rely on liberal mods and site owners to enable them.
Let's recall Clare from IA defended Vox's civil marriage to a married man.
We're dealing with weak-minded or bad-willed liberals on these forums. (and generally inside Tradition as well)
What is IA?
-
Ignis Ardens forum.
-
Does it surprise anyone that a forum which has a "conversion" book entitled: "The FishEaters Wham-Bam Thank You, Ma'am Conversion Booklet"; which is a nice usage of modern nomenclature for a quick, self-serving sex act to help promote traditional Catholicism, tolerates people like Melkite spreading his poison?
-
I have been on FE for a while now and have noticed anytime the sodomite question comes out in the open Vox is always eager to defend them, as if she's the white "lady-in-waiting" (instead of knight) for the fairies.
There are evil people working on the weak-willed and unintelligent to attack the Catholic Faith among "traditional Catholics."
They rely on liberal mods and site owners to enable them.
Let's recall Clare from IA defended Vox's civil marriage to a married man.
We're dealing with weak-minded or bad-willed liberals on these forums. (and generally inside Tradition as well)
Vox has Traditional Church teaching on her homepage, but in the forum she advocates clear heresy, like stating Trads will be surprised at all the non-Catholics in Heaven, and defending ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. Like a true Modernist she is a liar, claiming to be orthodox, yet condescendingly criticizing the dogmas of the Church.
Funny enough, I was just banned from FE for exposing "Scriptorium", by his very own admission, as a crypto-Buddhist.
-
Vox has Traditional Church teaching on her homepage, but in the forum she advocates clear heresy, like stating Trads will be surprised at all the non-Catholics in Heaven, and defending ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. Like a true Modernist she is a liar, claiming to be orthodox, yet condescendingly criticizing the dogmas of the Church.
Funny enough, I was just banned from FE for exposing "Scriptorium", by his very own admission, as a crypto-Buddhist.
Ha! You got banned for calling out Scriptorium? Sorry but he is one of the many NO defenders who helps make that site the NO promoting site that it is today - you cannot expose someone like him - it's not allowed!
Does it surprise anyone that a forum which has a "conversion" book entitled: "The FishEaters Wham-Bam Thank You, Ma'am Conversion Booklet"; which is a nice usage of modern nomenclature for a quick, self-serving sex act to help promote traditional Catholicism, tolerates people like Melkite spreading his poison?
Agreed - go ahead and explain what the title of the book means to a child.
-
Vox has Traditional Church teaching on her homepage, but in the forum she advocates clear heresy, like stating Trads will be surprised at all the non-Catholics in Heaven, and defending ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. Like a true Modernist she is a liar, claiming to be orthodox, yet condescendingly criticizing the dogmas of the Church.
Funny enough, I was just banned from FE for exposing "Scriptorium", by his very own admission, as a crypto-Buddhist.
Ha! You got banned for calling out Scriptorium? Sorry but he is one of the many NO defenders who helps make that site the NO promoting site that it is today - you cannot expose someone like him - it's not allowed!
Does it surprise anyone that a forum which has a "conversion" book entitled: "The FishEaters Wham-Bam Thank You, Ma'am Conversion Booklet"; which is a nice usage of modern nomenclature for a quick, self-serving sex act to help promote traditional Catholicism, tolerates people like Melkite spreading his poison?
Agreed - go ahead and explain what the title of the book means to a child.
It is now obvious that "Scriptorium" is a full time troll and apologist for the New Religion. Like most subversives, he/she seeks to change the paradigm of what it means to be a "traditional" Catholic. He has become much more blatant in his attempts to undermine traditional Catholicism on that forum.
I would encourage the few remaining trads on that forum to jump ship and let it go the way of Catholic Answers.
-
Vox has Traditional Church teaching on her homepage, but in the forum she advocates clear heresy, like stating Trads will be surprised at all the non-Catholics in Heaven, and defending ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. Like a true Modernist she is a liar, claiming to be orthodox, yet condescendingly criticizing the dogmas of the Church.
Funny enough, I was just banned from FE for exposing "Scriptorium", by his very own admission, as a crypto-Buddhist.
Ha! You got banned for calling out Scriptorium? Sorry but he is one of the many NO defenders who helps make that site the NO promoting site that it is today - you cannot expose someone like him - it's not allowed!
Agreed - go ahead and explain what the title of the book means to a child.
LOL. Actually he exposed him self. You're right though, I knew I was going to get banned. Such a small sacrifice to pay for more evidence of collusion between Vox Clamantis and skilled (probably professional) forum trolls.
-
Ah, you're just one of the overly right wing negative hardliners that turn people away from Tradition you meanie you! Have you no compassion for the human element of the Church? That is what that forum is all about don't cha know.
How do you expect to go about restoring the traditional Latin Mass and all of the traditional Sacramental rites, promote sound catechesis, correct the errors commonly taught in the post-Vatican II era and so on without keeping the human element of the Church in the forefront? HA!
You shoulda kept a copy of the Wham-Bam Thank You, Ma'am (Conversion Booklet?) handy at all times when you posted there and you would have been fine I bet LOL
I can't remember the poster's name, but I called him out for posting blatant modernism a few times when Quis ran the place - Quis banned that poster. These days, all we can say is that FE's come a long way baby!
-
Quis kinda ruined himself by getting involved in that "Laura" nonsense but at least he was a fair mod.
-
Ah, you're just one of the overly right wing negative hardliners that turn people away from Tradition you meanie you! Have you no compassion for the human element of the Church? That is what that forum is all about don't cha know.
How do you expect to go about restoring the traditional Latin Mass and all of the traditional Sacramental rites, promote sound catechesis, correct the errors commonly taught in the post-Vatican II era and so on without keeping the human element of the Church in the forefront? HA!
You shoulda kept a copy of the Wham-Bam Thank You, Ma'am (Conversion Booklet?) handy at all times when you posted there and you would have been fine I bet LOL
I can't remember the poster's name, but I called him out for posting blatant modernism a few times when Quis ran the place - Quis banned that poster. These days, all we can say is that FE's come a long way baby!
Wow, that Quis sounds like a big meany. He should heed the lectures and admonitions of the most respected adulteress Vox Clamantis, (who clearly is not a feminist) and be a nice boy. That way crypto-Buddhists and atheist humanists can feel comfortable scoffing at our families and blaspheming our Lord in their unfettered attack on the Church.
-
Gentlemen: I, too, have been banned from FE apparently for a lack of respect due to the illustrious NO Brahmin...
...in fact, seeing this thread, I could not resist to share with you - as many of you here seem like-minded in this matter - a special variant nickname I created for that aformentioned Brahmin: I call him Scryptorium, especially Scrypto for short! Thought you guys might appreciate that.
But nevermind me... carry on, gentlemen!
-
A shame that you were banned, tmw. But we're happy to have you here instead!
:cheers:
God Bless.
-
Yes, I'm with SpiritusSanctus, glad you're here tmw.
The difference between FE and CI is like, well, the difference between the NOM and the TLM - trads will find themselves out numbered and out of place at FE. . . . . . . so whoever does not find themselves out of place at FE, well, that should be their wake up call.
-
Gentlemen: I, too, have been banned from FE apparently for a lack of respect due to the illustrious NO Brahmin...
...in fact, seeing this thread, I could not resist to share with you - as many of you here seem like-minded in this matter - a special variant nickname I created for that aformentioned Brahmin: I call him Scryptorium, especially Scrypto for short! Thought you guys might appreciate that.
But nevermind me... carry on, gentlemen!
Could you link to the thread where this all took place, or perhaps quote Scriptorium?
-
I just read that a stalwart Trad, College Catholic, was banned. He has started a new forum in response. Some of the fembots over at FE are none too happy that the URL was promoted.
-
I just read that a stalwart Trad, College Catholic, was banned. He has started a new forum in response. Some of the fembots over at FE are none too happy that the URL was promoted.
Could you please post the URL for College Catholic's forum? Thanks.
-
The name of the Forum is Suscipe Domine.
-
The name of the Forum is Suscipe Domine.
I appreciate it.
-
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php
-
Post fail.
-
^ Thank you as well S.S.
PereJoseph hit the nail so squarely on page three that in my opinion it justifies a re-post.
Oh, please, this woman is an unrepentant public mortal sinner who proudly identifies herself with some of the worst scandalous revolutionary women (Simone Weil). She is no friend of Tradition, despite some of the materials on her website. She has been actively pursuing the destruction of the Faith for several years now and is too proud to restrain herself. She's a disgusting person with evil fruits. When somebody is publicly harming the Faith, Christians are obliged to combat that person's errors, even by attacking that person's credibility through assaults on her person. It is false charity to suggest that we are obliged to assume she has good motives for publicly defending her sin and her insane ideological attacks on the purity of the Faith and of Catholic morals and culture. We are only obliged to assume good motives until we have a probable reason to conclude otherwise. We are well past that point with her. Like most ferocious old damaged feminist shrews, she deals in self-righteous psychological manipulation and self-centered indulgence in observations that are mere products of her own twisted desires. That evil forum needs to be shut down and she needs to make public reparation for her public crimes.
-
Gentlemen: I, too, have been banned from FE apparently for a lack of respect due to the illustrious NO Brahmin...
...in fact, seeing this thread, I could not resist to share with you - as many of you here seem like-minded in this matter - a special variant nickname I created for that aformentioned Brahmin: I call him Scryptorium, especially Scrypto for short! Thought you guys might appreciate that.
But nevermind me... carry on, gentlemen!
Could you link to the thread where this all took place, or perhaps quote Scriptorium?
Bump.
-
I'm not sure if this all took place in the same thread or not. I would post the encounter I had with him, but can't view the site or get the link because I'm banned, and I'd rather let his words speak for himself. It was in a semi-recent thread about ++ Muller. I will say though, it was the first time I've ever heard a supposed trad relate something to the supposed inability to take back a supposed "karmic wave".
-
Yes, I'm with SpiritusSanctus, glad you're here tmw.
Thanks, Stubborn. I remember you were always one of the more sensible ones on FE.
Gentlemen: I, too, have been banned from FE apparently for a lack of respect due to the illustrious NO Brahmin...
...in fact, seeing this thread, I could not resist to share with you - as many of you here seem like-minded in this matter - a special variant nickname I created for that aformentioned Brahmin: I call him Scryptorium, especially Scrypto for short! Thought you guys might appreciate that.
But nevermind me... carry on, gentlemen!
Could you link to the thread where this all took place, or perhaps quote Scriptorium?
As a result of the ban, I can no longer browse the forum. However, if you take a look at my post history, Scrypto's post history, and make note of the flavor of the FE waters (or Kool Aid?) you will understand.
Gentlemen: I, too, have been banned from FE apparently for a lack of respect due to the illustrious NO Brahmin...
...in fact, seeing this thread, I could not resist to share with you - as many of you here seem like-minded in this matter - a special variant nickname I created for that aformentioned Brahmin: I call him Scryptorium, especially Scrypto for short! Thought you guys might appreciate that.
But nevermind me... carry on, gentlemen!
Could you link to the thread where this all took place, or perhaps quote Scriptorium?
Bump.
No worries, if you or anyone else ask me a question I'll (eventually) get back to you.
I'm not sure if this all took place in the same thread or not. I would post the encounter I had with him, but can't view the site or get the link because I'm banned, and I'd rather let his words speak for himself. It was in a semi-recent thread about ++ Muller. I will say though, it was the first time I've ever heard a supposed trad relate something to the supposed inability to take back a supposed "karmic wave".
Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I had responded to multiple threads by Scrypto, but the Mueller thread might have been the most controversial. Already I can't recall what you're referencing RE a "karmic wave" - probably because this happened before Christmas, and since then a not so insignificant number of developments have piled up!
-
Already I can't recall what you're referencing RE a "karmic wave" - probably because this happened before Christmas, and since then a not so insignificant number of developments have piled up!
Yeah, it happened about a few days before Christmas or so. Are you at liberty to speak of aforementioned developments? With Gerard being banned as well, it sounds like quite the purge happened.
-
Already I can't recall what you're referencing RE a "karmic wave" - probably because this happened before Christmas, and since then a not so insignificant number of developments have piled up!
Yeah, it happened about a few days before Christmas or so, Vox Clamantis probably deleted it anyway. Are you at liberty to speak of the aforementioned developments? With Gerard being banned as well, it sounds like quite the purge happened.
-
With Gerard being banned as well, it sounds like quite the purge happened.
Has Gerard been banned from FE? He was probably the best post over there, imho. Someone who has contact with him should invite him to post here.
-
With Gerard being banned as well, it sounds like quite the purge happened.
Has Gerard been banned from FE? He was probably the best post over there, imho. Someone who has contact with him should invite him to post here.
I liked Gerard very well, also. Have not looked in over at FE for a very long time.
I skimmed over about 15 pages of that thread. Disgusting, absolutely disgusting, and very poorly moderated.
-
To a certain extent, I think Vox is doing trads a favor by banning them. I mean, those trads who do their best to live the true faith without compromise will soon find themselves needing to compromise in order to fit in over there.
If you don't compromise, your time will be spent arguing even the most fundamental and basic truths as was taught in 1st grade catechism. . . . . . . . . which though almost completely forgotten / denied within the forum, she has posted on their main site.
-
I hope INPEFESS moves over to Suscipe Domine. Not much left on Fish-Eaters for him, unless he can be bothered tackling Novus Ordo mental gymnastics in the Theology and Philosophy subforum.
-
To a certain extent, I think Vox is doing trads a favor by banning them. I mean, those trads who do their best to live the true faith without compromise will soon find themselves needing to compromise in order to fit in over there.
I get what you mean, but in case her members believe her to be sort of an authority, no favors for their immortal souls! And some of the photos should never have been published on a Catholic forum.
-
With Gerard being banned as well, it sounds like quite the purge happened.
Has Gerard been banned from FE? He was probably the best post over there, imho. Someone who has contact with him should invite him to post here.
I read he was banned from the Suscipe Domine forums, Apparently 'Vox Clamantis' left some kind of title calling him snarky under his username - totally disrespectful, and completely out of line considering the great contribution he was to that forum. I certainly hope to see him around as well.
-
Are you at liberty to speak of the aforementioned developments? With Gerard being banned as well, it sounds like quite the purge happened.
Sorry to disappoint, Dellery - I reference only the wonderful madness of the three-day Christmas festivities (24th, 25th, 26th) that I experienced in-between! That Vox Clamantis has banned Gerard is only indicative of how far off the deep end she has plunged.
A little birdie has told me since my ban that apparently JayneK - ever the innocent little cryptoid! - is misrepresenting me on somebody else's farewell thread, saying I went out thinking I was defending the Faith from heretics. Banned as I am, I cannot respond (she has done this before, attacking Vetus after his ban IIRC.) Lest any of you good folks on CI not wander over to SD to see what I wrote for yourselves, this is it:
The best part is that I was banned after a nearly three month absence for one day of snark. Snark primarily against the modernist shill, Scriptorium - whose heretical NO nonsense masquerading as "Catholic" thought should be enough to make anyone with a decent Sensus Catholicus vomit a little into their mouth. But taken in a broader context... in the fifteen months preceding the ban, I paid up a monthly subscription fee in the first twelve months. As I went on a kind of hiatus following the (temporary) bans of several of my friends there in late September, I suppose I happened to make that fatal mistake of neglecting to pay up for protection. And for what? Playing on the absurdity of Scriptorium's posts? Making the "Would this or that canonization make you go sede" poll in the Cornfield, which the site ownership has claimed is not even a "real" part of the forum? I should think a year's worth of donations (totaling almost $150), three years of membership AND linking people to Amazon with the FE URL code (who knows how much that profited the owner) would count for something against a day of snark - twelve posts, if I recall correctly. God love a certain physician from Mumbai who posts there ;) but the man literally told another user in graphic detail to snuff himself out and he is still on FE. That incident has since been purged from the Cornfield, for good reason, but for those of us who recall the incident it illustrates an awful double-standard - as this poster happens to fall in the sedeplenist line, snarks accordingly, he is permitted. But wo to the sedes! As if sedevacantist Catholics are lepers...
Searching my words, I can't come up with any triumphalist beatin'-the-heretics-type of talk, but maybe I'm missing something because I lack all those advanced degrees JayneK says she has. Then again, misrepresentation has always been a part of her MO...
All I see is the foolish mistake of donating 150ish dollars to someone who I have since discovered is not friendly to Catholic Tradition (to say the least) - a mistake I intend to confess to be on the safe side, and certainly endeavor to never repeat!
-
Searching my words, I can't come up with any triumphalist beatin'-the-heretics-type of talk, but maybe I'm missing something because I lack all those advanced degrees JayneK says she has. Then again, misrepresentation has always been a part of her MO...
All I see is the foolish mistake of donating 150ish dollars to someone who I have since discovered is not friendly to Catholic Tradition (to say the least) - a mistake I intend to confess to be on the safe side, and certainly endeavor to never repeat!
Hey, don't feel bad - I gave $10 once myself when I thought it was justified because fighting the good fight amongst the NOers there was a good reason to keep FE from closing. I hate to admit that now, but it's true. That place has the propensity to suck in - and keep in - almost everyone who happens across that place.
As far as you missing those advanced degrees are concerned, thank your lucky stars that Our Lord kept you away from getting such an advanced education - else you too could have been indoctrinated to the core in modernism. Your posts are not mingled with a confused theology like theirs - so be glad, not regretful!
Have no regrets my friend! I understand there is another trad forum, SD - I hope it blossoms and keeps the true faith as primary like CI does!
-
FishEaters is the sorriest excuse for a "trad" forum I have ever seen. I can't believe she purges Traditional Catholics rather than the liberals who actually need it yet dares to call herself a Trad.
Edit: I tried logging in to my acconut on FE for the first time in several months, and it said I was banned. I haven't made a post there since August or September, so Vox could not have banned me for any posts I made on FE, because I was able to log into my account in October just fine. There are only two reasons I can think of as to why Vox banned me:
1- She read my posts on here and decided to "purge" me along with the other Trads on FE for being "too Traditional".
2- She noticed that I was asking about "CollegeCatholic's" new forum in the FE chatroom the other night and assumed I joined, so she banned me for joining.
Either way, a badge of honor, I say.
-
FishEaters is the sorriest excuse for a "trad" forum I have ever seen. I can't believe she purges Traditional Catholics rather than the liberals who actually need it yet dares to call herself a Trad.
....
Dear Spiritus,
You are right about FE.
FE is just a semi-traditional forum, run by a Feminist.
FE is also a very BORING forum.
Far worse is the fact that many of the FE members are not really Catholic in their ideas about the Faith.
And many posters there seem ignorant about the Faith.
When I have read threads on FE, I feel out of place. I am not among my fellow Catholics.
On FE, I am among novus ordo types, and sometimes among blatant heretics.
The good posters there are in a minority, and can easily get banned.
FE is a hybrid monster: part novus ordo, part sspx, part Feminist.
CathInfo is a forum where almost everyone is a traditional Catholic.
We may have our disagreements, but on CathInfo we are almost all very deeply committed traditional Catholics.
And on CathInfo, you can be a Sede and speak the truth about the crisis in the Church without being banned merely for having the truth.
You can learn a lot about the Faith on CathInfo.
FE is often boring, heretical, rubbish.
-
Dec. 19th 2012 - Fisheaters forum.
Scriptorium wrote:
"I would be very careful about your words here, since they do not merely exist in the confines of your mind, but are open to the whole world. And like some karmic wave that goes out, it can't be taken back..."
"Please read more carefully. I said like some karmic wave. All that means is that our acts set in motion chains of events which play out throughout all time. It was not a support of any non-Catholic teaching on action and consequence. Call it butterfly effect or fill in another analogy if you want."
Dellery wrote: " No, this is an instance where you mistakenly shewed your fangs. The context of your entire post history on this site has been a series of unorthodox opinions in the name of orthodoxy - the same kind of double speak St. Pius X warned us you filthy modernists consistently take advantage of. Taken together with the nature of your posts, it's quite unbelievable that you innocently used that analogy. You have also shown in the recent past to be familiar with [sic] ,and a proponent of, pacifist, and new age ideas. Thankfully, as we have just seen, what is hidden in the dark will always come to light.
*Disclaimer - Please don't take my word for truth, I implore all to carefully look at Scriptorium's contradictory and convoluted post history for themselves.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1142889;sa=showPosts "
Scriptorium wrote: " Well, I have a dedicated reader! My pacifistic questions have been with me my whole life. I didn't become a police officer because I didn't see myself being able to shoot someone. I was a Buddhist and taught others not to kill anything willingly. And since coming back to the Church, I have attempted to square the teachings of peace and non-resistance witht [sic] the teachings of just war and self-defense. I own a gun and am ready to use it if need be. I train in eastern internal martial arts.
As for New Age, I don't know what to say. The closes I've come to New Age stuff is reading Teilhard, and liking some music people might call new agey.
See, I used the adjective "karmic" because I am confident in my faith. I don't need to dance around a perfectly good analogy to convince you or others that I believe in Christ and His Church.
But then why I am defending myself? I am not hiding here. I freely speak with you all.
Kind of a shame. We could have gotten along. "
Dellery wrote: "Unfortunately the effects of eastern paganism are still lingering, which is why they were able to be pinned down in the first place. Moreover, I could never get along with anybody who shares their confusion with others so readily. You admonish others to mind their words on a public forum because they can't be taken back, and I agree, but let me also remind you that a damned soul can't be taken back either - a soul that could invariably hinge on the words typed on public forums. "
Vox Clamantis wrote: "Banned for snarkiness, overly rigorist posts, lack of respect for other posters, general nastiness"
---
Vox Clamantis also wrote on Dec. 26th 2012: "FYI: For the past few months (at least!), I've made post after post lamenting the presence of "trads" who are overly negative, joyless, pharisaic, overly-rigorist, and who tend to show great disrespect for the Holy Father, for fellow non-traditionalist Catholics (misled as many of them are), a disgusting attitude toward folks who suffer from ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations, and what amounts to true anti-semitism (as opposed to knowing what the post-Temple Jєωιѕн religion is and speaking about it with prudence, knowing about the power of AIPAC, et. al., and its negative influence on American foreign policy, having a clue about the history of usury and how it's led to disproportionate Jєωιѕн representation in places of power, etc.) and the inability to speak of the painful Truths of Jєωιѕн-Catholic relations with prudence. Oh, and then there's the snarkiness -- the all too prevalent sarcastic comments no matter what the thread, the turning of every other thread into a killjoy, Pope-bashing free-for-all. I mean, seriously.. You post an article about how the cute, 7-year old Joseph Ratzinger wrote a letter to the Baby Jesus, asking for .prayer books, and you get a reply that once again outlines the horrors of "Vatican II" (neverminding the question of whether it was Vatican II's docuмents themselves or that evil "spirit" we keep hearing about). When the Vicar of Christ, our Holy Father, gets snarked on even as his 7-year old self, something's got to give. Jeezaloo!
Like I said, post after post was written by me. But the folks who engaged in those behaviors kept on. I guess they thought I wasn't serious, thinking I was like the bad parent who's always saying, "I'm going to start counting to ten!" and following up with nothing. But I was and I am very serious. I believe -- I know -- that these types turn people away from Tradition. They, therefore, defeat the very purpose of my website. I got really sick of hearing myself repeat the same stuff over and over and over, so I decided the only way to cope was to ban people who keep on with the snark and the disrespect and repeatedly do the virtual equivalent of knocking over the shrimp platter at a party. You know the type ---
SO, that's the deal with the disappearing posters. I've just had it. Some of you might not like that I am doing this; others of you might be very glad. But I can't do nothing about the problem. I didn't want to have to ban people, and it especially sucks when some of those people -- many of whom have been here for years -- I actually agree with lots of the time. But they simply "can't" express themselves with any prudence, subtlety, or balance. Some are quite bright and have some seriously good points to make. But I believe, given the months-worth of posts on the problem, that they've had plenty of time to amend their ways, and they simply haven't. I have a list of folks -- consisting, ironically, of 13 people -- I am keeping an eye on. If you're wondering "am I on that list?" then you likely are. The "troublemakers,"; as I've titled the list, seem to know exactly who they are.
If you follow the forum rules (see the menu at upper left), you should have no problems and nothing whatsoever to fear. My guess, though, as said, is that the folks I'm talking about know exactly whom I refer to. I believe this because just about every time the topic was brought up the same handful of people would rally from a defensive position, overtly defending the behaviors I've outlined. Why they apparently know they're snarky, negative, overly rigorist "hardliners" who are disrespectful of the man they at least profess to believe is Christ's Vicar -- said behaviors being ones that turn people away from Tradition! -- and would prefer to keep being that way instead of changing how they post is beyond me. But whatever.
The goal of this site is to heal the human element of the Church by furthering the "cause" of Tradition -- i.e., restoring the traditional Latin Mass and all of the traditional Sacramental rites, promoting sound catechesis, correcting the errors commonly taught in the post-Vatican II era, promoting popular devotions, etc. I will not allow those who defeat that purpose to remain here on the forum. It'd be stupid of me, likely even sinful. I'm done.
For the rest of you -- the vast majority of you! -- carry on with your beautiful, fine traddy Catholic selves! God bless... "
---
Lets not forget how Vox Clamantis defines the varieties (!?) of Traditional Catholics:
" Please know that no given post at this forum is indicative (necessarily) of the opinions or attitudes held by the Fish Eaters Website. Opinions expressed at this forum come from a variety of traditional Catholics -- some of whom the site-owner, VoxClamantis, may disagree with vehemently. We're just folks here trying to find our way through the confusion, and worship Christ the best we know how. Some of us are highly educated, some aren't. Some are intellectuals; some are not. Some like to argue; others like to discuss. Some express themselves well; some don't. Some attend Masses offered by priests with ordinary jurisdiction, some attend Masses offered by the S.S.P.X., some attend either one without qualm, and some might attend attend either with qualms. Some see attendance at the N.O. Mass, when no traditional Mass is available, as mandatory barring severe abuse; others avoid the N.O. Mass entirely."
...lest we also forget...
" This forum is for adult conversation about real life, for real grown-ups, with most of us having grown up in the 70s and 80s. Leave the coyness, the fake shocked expressions, the tongue-clucking, the swooning, the unwillingness to properly name body parts, the Holy Card Impersonator schtick, the "Why, I nevah" stuff (especially when you most certainly did), and other such silliness to other people's forums. Prudery won't be tolerated. Leave any Puritanism back in the hands of 17th c. Calvinists and Jansenists; we are 21st c. Catholics here, and as Hilaire Belloc wrote:
"Wherever the Catholic sun does shine,
There's music, laughter and good red wine.
At least, I've always found it so:
Benedicamus Domino!" "
Wham bam thank you ma'am indeed, truly the words of the harlot.
-
I just thought of something. Vox probably saw me say on here that she was soft on gαys. So that's likely why she banned me, I've probably been banned from there for weeks without even knowing it.
-
Dellery, we are indebted to you for these quotes:
Banned for snarkiness, overly rigorist posts, lack of respect for other posters, general nastiness
FYI: For the past few months (at least!), I've made post after post lamenting the presence of "trads" who are overly negative, joyless, pharisaic, overly-rigorist, and who tend to show great disrespect for the Holy Father, for fellow non-traditionalist Catholics (misled as many of them are)...
....the turning of every other thread into a killjoy, Pope-bashing free-for-all. I mean, seriously.. You post an article about how the cute, 7-year old Joseph Ratzinger
...and you get a reply that once again outlines the horrors of "Vatican II" (neverminding the question of whether it was Vatican II's docuмents themselves or that evil "spirit" we keep hearing about). When the Vicar of Christ, our Holy Father, gets snarked on even as his 7-year old self, something's got to give.
So Vox is anti-traditional Catholic.
And Vox is a big supporter of Antipope Benedict XVI.
Vox Clamantis is an evil woman.
Vox is leading people away from God.
Benedict XVI NEEDS these FE types to drag the deceived semi-traditional Catholics into the conciliar fold.
FE is a tool of the conservative wing of the heretical conciliar church.
FE should be avoided, except by those who go there viewing it as "mission territory" (that is a term that Matthew used to describe the view of some people who come on CathInfo trying to change us to their errors.)
In other words, only go on FE to convert them.
And only do that if you are a real uncompromising traditional Catholic. The type Vox would delight in banning anyway.
I seriously think that it can confuse people about the Faith if they read a forum like FE, unless they REALLY DO understand the crisis in the Church.
-
Spiritus Sanctus, JayneK has been lurking around here lately, she could've saw something you typed and reported it.
-
Dear Spiritus,
You were banned from FE:
That is a badge of honour.
God Bless you, my friend.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.
-
Sede Catholic:
I seriously think that it can confuse people about the Faith if they read a forum like FE, unless they REALLY DO understand the crisis in the Church.
Truly.
I believe it's even more dangerous than CAF, because as you have said, it serves to: "drag the deceived semi-traditional Catholics into the conciliar fold."
Anybody questioning the new theology will be directed right back to it, by Fisheaters, sickeningly under the guise of Traditionalism.
-
Yes, Dellery, that is exactly it!
Anyone who is even slightly Catholic can see through CAF.
But the other "traditionalist" forums are more opaque in their spreading of errors.
Therefore, because of FE, people who do not really understand the problems in the conciliar church can be lead away from the Faith.
Those who do not have a clear understanding of the problems in the conciliar church should avoid FE, and other such faux-traditionalist forums.
-
You are correct, Sede. It is indeed a badge of honor, just as my banishment from "Catholic" Answers two and a half years ago was.
I only registered there to keep in touch with some friends of mine who are/were members there (most of whom I realized don't even post there anymore). I hadn't posted there in a few months. I thought it was disgraceful that profanity was allowed there, not to mention certain gαys there who defended gαys being able to "cuddle" and were vigorously defened by Vox. It's disgusting. That place is beginning to make even CAF look half-decent.
-
Spiritus Sanctus, JayneK has been lurking around here lately, she could've saw something you typed and reported it.
I have been a member here for a year and a half. I don't post much but I try to keep track of the posts here. Assume that I am always lurking.
I did not report anything. And I would be very surprised if Vox banned people on FE for posts they make here. I suspect she banned SS for something he wrote there shortly before he stopped posting/reading. He has probably been banned for months but only just found out now.
-
I did not report anything. And I would be very surprised if Vox banned people on FE for posts they make here. I suspect she banned SS for something he wrote there shortly before he stopped posting/reading. He has probably been banned for months but only just found out now.
That couldn't be it, because I was able to log into my account in October with no problem. And I also don't think I wrote anything on FE that was worthy of a ban. Even if I did, the fact that I could still log in a month or so after I quit posting tells me that it was something I said off of FE that ticked her off. I'm guessing it my post on page 1 of this thread.
-
I'm guessing it my post on page 1 of this thread.
Should read: I'm guessing it was my post on page 1 of this thread.
-
I did not report anything. And I would be very surprised if Vox banned people on FE for posts they make here. I suspect she banned SS for something he wrote there shortly before he stopped posting/reading. He has probably been banned for months but only just found out now.
That couldn't be it, because I was able to log into my account in October with no problem. And I also don't think I wrote anything on FE that was worthy of a ban. Even if I did, the fact that I could still log in a month or so after I quit posting tells me that it was something I said off of FE that ticked her off. I'm guessing it my post on page 1 of this thread.
I have never seen Vox express the slightest interest doing anything like that. It is completely unlike her. Most often she bans in response to complaints. Here is a likely scenario: Somebody complained about something you wrote shortly before leaving. Vox got way behind in dealing with her emails. (She was going through the final illness and death of her father during this period and I noticed her having less time for forum business.) She finally got around to responding to the complaint and banning you sometime after you checked your account.
-
Well, that's possible, though I have don't know what I posted that would have triggered a complaint. I can't look through my old posts because once you're banned you can't view the board.
As for her father, I'm sorry to hear that. May his soul rest in peace. :pray:
-
And I also don't think I wrote anything on FE that was worthy of a ban.
Logical Flaw: You assume you have to write something worthy of a ban to be banned from FE.
-
And I also don't think I wrote anything on FE that was worthy of a ban.
Logical Flaw: You assume you have to write something worthy of a ban to be banned from FE.
That is true, stevus. :laugh1:
-
Vox Clamantis wrote on Dec. 30th 2012
"If he can't answer a question, based directly on what he says here, without its being called "sede-baiting," then it sounds as if what you're saying is that he's promoting sedevacantism here. And that's exactly the problem with some of the posters who've been banned: they've been promoting sedevacantism here even while denying it -- even while claiming not to be sedevacantists. People who used phrases like "the Conciliar Church" (instead of speaking, say, of the Church in the post-conciliar era, etc.) are, in fact, promoting sedevacantism, schism, or the idea that there is more than One universal Church".
Her statements get more incoherent, and idiotic, as the weeks go by.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre would have been banned from that forum, then. He used the term "conciliar church" very often.
-
And I also don't think I wrote anything on FE that was worthy of a ban.
Logical Flaw: You assume you have to write something worthy of a ban to be banned from FE.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
-
No worries Dellery, I can take care of this...............think this will be obvious enough?
Conciliar Church, where the "New Mass" makes the good pleasure of the people its "liturgy."
(http://mundabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/feel-the-love.jpg)
Catholic Church, where the Eternal Sacrifice of Christ our Savior at Calvary is reenacted in an unbloody manner
(http://www.sanctamissa.org/workshops/graphics/Br.%20J%20pictures%20122.jpg)
-
Archbishop Lefebvre would have been banned from that forum, then. He used the term "conciliar church" very often.
That's right Spiritus. Think of how many Saints would have been banned from the Fisheaters forum, St. Jerome wouldn't have stood a chance. Our dear Lord possibly would've even received the same treatment after explaining the true nature of Marriage and adultery. To suggest that any holy person would accept the hidden conditions foist upon them ( i.e. acceptance of heresy in the name of Catholic orthodoxy, among other things), after they were deceptively conned into joining what they though was a Christian forum, is highly unlikely. To suggest they would heed or respect the evangelistic program of a public sinner is even more unlikely.
You bring up a good point, and a give us a good standard by which to judge these supposedly Catholic internet forums.
-
More reasons why the Fisheaters forum is a danger to the Faith:
Vox Clamantis said 1/30/13 [emphasis mine]
That about sums it up for me. Asking politely and even begging people to use prudence and behave charitably when writing about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs hasn't worked. So I add a filter so that 4 of the most common slurs used to refer to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are replaced by the word "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs" and it's like the end of the world. If anyone thinks I like having to resort to such things, he'd be wrong. I loathe it. I am SICK of it. I am more sick, hovwever, of asking people to write as if they're aware that people are reading over our shoulders, to be aware that subject lines go on the front page and in RSS feeds that show up in a million places. But too many still insist on using words kindergartners use to insult each other. And on a traditional Catholic forum.
Unlesss GGreg was writing about a bundle of sticks or a hunk of dirt with grass growing on it, I don't know what he could have possibly posted to cause Rosarium to write, "This came to my attention when ggreg wrote something in response to me and a phrase which had a filtered word was changed to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ without warning. i thought he wrote that and almost responded to it, but I refrained. What if I had responded? Why does the software create occasions of sin?" There are 4 words that are replaced with the word "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ," and none of them would be used anywhere 99.99999999999% of the time on a Catholic forum unless quoting someone who has no prudence or talking about that bundle of stick or hunk of dirt.
Some of the posts in this thread demonstrate the reason for such mommy measures. I am sick of some folks smearing the FAITH circuitously by bad example. I am sick of some people undoing the work of the main site by making traditional Catholicism look like a religion for raging, hateful, name-calling idiots. I am sick of having to worry about ending up on some SPLC "hate group" list because some people can't control their mouths. If those who can't resist calling ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs by slurs want to go to a FEMA camp, they can have at it, but I'm not going to let them drag me with them. They can order their FEMA camp tickets on their own sites. If I go to a FEMA camp, I want it to be for the cause of the Faith, not because some loose-lipped ranter on my forum just couldn't watch his mouth. I am also sick of trying to attract advertisers so I can afford to feed my cat only to have the aforementioned imprudent types force me two steps backwards. The rules are clear. So four of the most common slurs are replaced by the word "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ." Big deal. I also don't like it on principle, don't like the idea of changing the text of someone's post. In fact, I hate it. I hate having felt compelled to do it even more because knowing that I can't trust some people to not only obey the rules, but write such that people will not be turned away from Christ's Church disgusts me and makes me mad. But subject lines with offensive words in them are something up with which I will not put.
Having said that, I likely will undo that auto-replace and just ban people who break that rule because, as I said, I don't like it on principle. It bugs me, also.
But no, Rosarium, I won't stop re-typing subject lines that have been written in ALL CAPS. It's annoying, ugly, against the rules, and rude to type in ALL CAPS like that and I don't want that stuff on my front page and in RSS feeds. And doing so does nothing to any post's integrity.
It's been clear for a while that you don't like this place. You've been complaining about it pretty much non-stop for months. So I will undo the auto-replace of the four slurs that have you angered, thereby preserving the purity of whatever posts you have made that use those words, and I will delete your account, something I usually don't do (and the asking for which is also against the rules).
Nota bene: to the small handful of folks who insist on using slurs to refer to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, thereby making the average person see traditional Catholics as nasty jerks, you risk a ban engaging in that sort of behavior. And before anyone goes on about "political correctness" yada yada yada, it isn't a matter of political correctness to ask for prudence and CHARITY. Anything that can be said -- and must be said -- about the radical ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖist agenda can be said like a grown-up would say it. Nothing "politically correct" about saying, for ex., "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ 'marriage' is against Church teaching and natural law" instead of "So-called 'marriage' between two fabulous, fudge-packing nancy boys is against Church teaching and natural law." If you don't see the difference between political correctness and requesting prudence and charity, there's little hope for you, really, and I see such thought as the expression of those who want to rant more than communicate and teach and attract people to the Church. If you value ranting more than those things, there's litttle hope for you with that, either, though I suggest you go talk to a priest about it 'cause there's something really, really wrong there.
Vox Clamantis said 2/1/13 [emphasis mine]
The software has been reset so there are no autocorrects for that now, but the words were, I think: sod, fag, fαɢɢօt, and poofter. The autocorrect idea was implemented in a tiff after seeing yet another post with some slur or other, but I, like Rosarium, hate the idea of autocorrect that changes a word entirely rather than indicating a word (ex., using f*** for the F-word instead of changing the word to a different word entirely).
Whatever the case, I just wish people would seriously keep in mind that this place gets MILLIONS of pageviews a month -- and most aren't from members. People from all walks read this forum, some of them (most of them?) being folks who are interested in and investigating traditional Catholicism. The idea of having those folks turned off by imprudence scares the Hell out of me. Know that my hunch is that most of the few posters that do this sort of thing don't really intend any harm, are just (understandably) angry and are venting at the never-ending attacks on the traditional family, or are just joking around, trying to be funny or what not -- all fine and good at the right place and the right time. I have a gαy friend I've jokingly called a "crazy old fαɢɢօt," KWIM? But it's one thing to use slang and even jokingly use slurs when you're hanging out with your pals over a few beers, or if you're posting at a different kind of site where souls aren't at stake, where what you post isn't seen as "what trads think" or indicative of "what trads are like." I don't think anyone here is a hater of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs or anything (well, maybe one or two...) and I don't take the loose talk as proof of someone's being "a hater." But to not be careful at a site the purpose of which is to bring folks around to seeing the "trad view" of things, to further the "cause" of Tradition, to bring souls to Christ, is just unnecessarily dangerous and, therefore, stupid. And frustrating for me.
She's clearly "reconciled" Catholicism with the world, unfortunately, she prolifically enforces and spreads her disorientation with militant zeal.
P.S. I laughed at Rosarium's ban.
-
Rosarium was banned? For what? Being Traditional?
FE is a disgrace.
-
Rosarium was banned? For what? Being Traditional?
FE is a disgrace.
Rosarium is a "conciliarist", or as most of us would say, modernist.
He was crazily talking about licensing his posts before she gave him the axe.
"But no, Rosarium, I won't stop re-typing subject lines that have been written in ALL CAPS. It's annoying, ugly, against the rules, and rude to type in ALL CAPS like that and I don't want that stuff on my front page and in RSS feeds. And doing so does nothing to any post's integrity.
It's been clear for a while that you don't like this place. You've been complaining about it pretty much non-stop for months. So I will undo the auto-replace of the four slurs that have you angered, thereby preserving the purity of whatever posts you have made that use those words, and I will delete your account, something I usually don't do (and the asking for which is also against the rules). "
-
Ah, sorry. I didn't know Rosarium was a conciliarist.
-
Ah, sorry. I didn't know Rosarium was a conciliarist.
FWIW, modernists wouldn't be so successful if it was easy to immediately see their errors.
-
More reasons why the Fisheaters forum is a danger to the Faith:
She's clearly "reconciled" Catholicism with the world, unfortunately, she prolifically enforces and spreads her disorientation with militant zeal.
That is the way it works when a forum wants it both ways, ie trad and socially acceptable. She wants FE to be a face book and a trad(?) forum - so she ends up with a forum over run by NOers who, just like the conciliar church, falsely label themselves as Traditional Catholics - not all of the posters there of course, but most of them.
You are right too in saying it is a danger to the faith over there - especially for many sincere and those young people who are new to this conciliar mess.
-
I just read that a stalwart Trad, College Catholic, was banned. He has started a new forum in response. Some of the fembots over at FE are none too happy that the URL was promoted.
I was on that forum for a little while, it's basically a FishEaters II.
They allow a Protestant to post a bunch of rubbish over there (in case you're wondering, yes, I am refering to VetusOrdo, the ex-Trad who used to post on FE). He was on some thread saying the woman can and should work outside the home if she wants and was suggesting the Church had "failed". I fired back, and then he hypocritically accused me of "heresy" (a Protestant accusing a Traditional Catholic of heresy, LOL). So as I defended myself and Church teaching, one of the four moderators there chimed in and told both of us to stop. I was angry that I was asked to "stop" defending Church teaching against this Protestant. I stood up to the mod and he responded with some smart-aleck remark.
Then Jaynek starts attacking me by criticizing me for "not showing respect for the moderators". Following the fight on that thread, College Catholic opened a subforum for complaining about the forum, and Jaynek started two threads there. In the first thread, she complained about people who "don't show respect for the forum's moderators" (obviously refering to me and a few others) and then started another thread complaining about the "personal attack" some users were launching at Vetus (again refering to me and a few others).
It gets worse. On the thread where I argued with Vetus, they were discussing whether or not the woman should get a degree, and they were nearly all for it. The feminism on that place is astonishing, no different from FE, really.
Not to mention that Erin is Nice is over there saying the man shouldn't be the head of the household.
Even FE didn't allow Vetus to spew heresy, but SD does. That place is hardly any better than FE, the only difference is Trads are not banned for no reason. Please stay away from that site.
-
JayneK is a sanctimonious pain in the behind. Is there a word that exists in the English lanugage that is of a higher degree to describe her, eh, sanctimony?
What I have noticed at FE and not at SD is the retention of some posters who are wickedly vile in there responses to those who call them out for being over zealous. I have alos seen blasphemy tolerated. Wicked place. Please pray for me bretheren, that I never go there again.
But I do enjoy SD. GMUA and a fews others make good posts with SSPX and types of news.
-
More reasons why the Fisheaters forum is a danger to the Faith:
She's clearly "reconciled" Catholicism with the world, unfortunately, she prolifically enforces and spreads her disorientation with militant zeal.
That is the way it works when a forum wants it both ways, ie trad and socially acceptable. She wants FE to be a face book and a trad(?) forum - so she ends up with a forum over run by NOers who, just like the conciliar church, falsely label themselves as Traditional Catholics - not all of the posters there of course, but most of them.
You are right too in saying it is a danger to the faith over there - especially for many sincere and those young people who are new to this conciliar mess.
That's why I keep posting this FE crap on this forum. It's heartbreaking knowing those who are seeking out of the conciliar mess are being led right back into by a various pack of wolves. Fr. Z being another example of these disguised fiends.
-
I just read that a stalwart Trad, College Catholic, was banned. He has started a new forum in response. Some of the fembots over at FE are none too happy that the URL was promoted.
I was on that forum for a little while, it's basically a FishEaters II.
They allow a Protestant to post a bunch of rubbish over there (in case you're wondering, yes, I am refering to VetusOrdo, the ex-Trad who used to post on FE). He was on some thread saying the woman can and should work outside the home if she wants and was suggesting the Church had "failed". I fired back, and then he hypocritically accused me of "heresy" (a Protestant accusing a Traditional Catholic of heresy, LOL). So as I defended myself and Church teaching, one of the four moderators there chimed in and told both of us to stop. I was angry that I was asked to "stop" defending Church teaching against this Protestant. I stood up to the mod and he responded with some smart-aleck remark.
Then Jaynek starts attacking me by criticizing me for "not showing respect for the moderators". Following the fight on that thread, College Catholic opened a subforum for complaining about the forum, and Jaynek started two threads there. In the first thread, she complained about people who "don't show respect for the forum's moderators" (obviously refering to me and a few others) and then started another thread complaining about the "personal attack" some users were launching at Vetus (again refering to me and a few others).
It gets worse. On the thread where I argued with Vetus, they were discussing whether or not the woman should get a degree, and they were nearly all for it. The feminism on that place is astonishing, no different from FE, really.
Not to mention that Erin is Nice is over there saying the man shouldn't be the head of the household.
Even FE didn't allow Vetus to spew heresy, but SD does. That place is hardly any better than FE, the only difference is Trads are not banned for no reason. Please stay away from that site.
Thanks for this information ServusSpiritusSancti, it's a necessity for us to expose erroneous and dangerous forums, that in a lot of people's eyes, convey the Catholic faith. For one to have a good forum, one has to mercilessly silence lies and error, except for the sake of their refutation, and this should only be done in moderation. This is where the genius of Mathew's management preserves this forum from the same treacherous flow of liars that plague the others.
A Protestant allowed to spread their Gospel perverting filth on a Catholic forum!?
This just incenses me.
-
JayneK is a sanctimonious pain in the behind. Is there a word that exists in the English lanugage that is of a higher degree to describe her, eh, sanctimony?
What I have noticed at FE and not at SD is the retention of some posters who are wickedly vile in there responses to those who call them out for being over zealous. I have alos seen blasphemy tolerated. Wicked place. Please pray for me bretheren, that I never go there again.
But I do enjoy SD. GMUA and a fews others make good posts with SSPX and types of news.
I think Jaynek's problem is that she defends a moderator's actions even when they promote scandal. I'm all for respecting a moderator, but when they start allowing a Protestant to get away with attacking the Traditional Catholic Faith (and Vetus has done it over there on numerous occasions), I won't stand for it.
She was not even the only one on there defending Vetus. It's sick.
SD does have some good posters, though, I agree with you on that. It's just a shame they're overshadowed by some neo-cons, feminists, and a Protestant who spews heresy.
-
I just read that a stalwart Trad, College Catholic, was banned. He has started a new forum in response. Some of the fembots over at FE are none too happy that the URL was promoted.
I was on that forum for a little while, it's basically a FishEaters II.
They allow a Protestant to post a bunch of rubbish over there (in case you're wondering, yes, I am refering to VetusOrdo, the ex-Trad who used to post on FE). He was on some thread saying the woman can and should work outside the home if she wants and was suggesting the Church had "failed". I fired back, and then he hypocritically accused me of "heresy" (a Protestant accusing a Traditional Catholic of heresy, LOL). So as I defended myself and Church teaching, one of the four moderators there chimed in and told both of us to stop. I was angry that I was asked to "stop" defending Church teaching against this Protestant. I stood up to the mod and he responded with some smart-aleck remark.
Then Jaynek starts attacking me by criticizing me for "not showing respect for the moderators". Following the fight on that thread, College Catholic opened a subforum for complaining about the forum, and Jaynek started two threads there. In the first thread, she complained about people who "don't show respect for the forum's moderators" (obviously refering to me and a few others) and then started another thread complaining about the "personal attack" some users were launching at Vetus (again refering to me and a few others).
It gets worse. On the thread where I argued with Vetus, they were discussing whether or not the woman should get a degree, and they were nearly all for it. The feminism on that place is astonishing, no different from FE, really.
Not to mention that Erin is Nice is over there saying the man shouldn't be the head of the household.
Even FE didn't allow Vetus to spew heresy, but SD does. That place is hardly any better than FE, the only difference is Trads are not banned for no reason. Please stay away from that site.
I was thinking the same thing: Fisheaters 2.0
There is a reason I don't post Fisheaters. It's too bad the feminists and neo-trads from FE seem to be taking over SD.
-
When the first Traditional alternative to FE - Council of Trent forums - was started, there were a lot of feminists there as well. The two mods there, however, were pretty Traditional.
I think that posting on FE for a long time can be dangerous to one's mindset, no doubt. So when you have a lot of people from FE join a forum, that forum will likely start looking a little like FE if they aren't soon purged.
-
Hello everybody.
As you might imagine, I've been busy over at Suscipe Domine (apparently aka Fish Eaters II). Thought I might post a thought or two here, seeing as how there are a few misconceptions that could stand to be cleared up.
First, I should make it clear for those who don't know that I am a moderator on SD. The forum was planned some months before CollegeCatholic and myself were banned from FE. Setting out, we and several other Catholics wanted to make a place on the Internet like FE, only for Trads. I think that thus far, the results haven't been too shabby.
Second, about the parts that have been shabby. The apostate Vetus Ordo is free to post at SD. At least up through now, and until he very clearly violates the rules it looks like he might stay there. If it were up to me as admin, it would be different. But the admin of the site doesn't think Vetus's apostate status is enough to warrant a ban. JayneK is about as crypto as it gets, and she's posting there. I think a lot of you know I'm no fan of hers, either. There's another executive decision that I don't agree with...
...but I don't think that from those two problems we arrive at Fish Eaters II. If you take a look around the place, you'll see the more active posters are by and large Trads such as yourselves. What's more, unlike FE (which is beyond the storied point of no return), SD is at such a point where problem posters like Vetus and Jayne can be drowned out if there are enough other posters who call them on their horse manure - but as long as guys like you throw your hands up and leave, it won't happen. I know I would appreciate back up from non-mods, to show I'm not just on some modly power-trip!
And knowing the forum leadership, I can assure you there's nary a modernist among the five of us. How many other Trad forums can boast sedevacantist moderators getting along with sedeplenist moderators? It's not because we've compromised with modernists - the forum officially stands against them. In fact we're officially pro-SSPX, and the Admin has opened an ongoing archive of +Williamson's Eleison Comments.
Please, let me reiterate and expand a little: I've talked with the forum owner/admin, Kaesekopf/CollegeCatholic, and we discussed how an authentically Catholic forum should operate. Initially, in the very beginning of SD, he was hesitant to stifle debate and thought it could be almost a "free for all" in terms of public discussion. However, he is coming around to the proper mindset of "error has no rights," and he is working on how to appropriately incorporate that into the forum. Remember, this is our first time running a forum, and it's hard to get it "right" on the first go. To leave during a few birthing pains, however... I do hope those of you who haven't posted much recently come back, and maybe even more of you.
Sorry for being a little long-winded. Just thought it a good idea to keep you guys apprised of what's what over at SD.
EDITED TO ADD: Matthew, apologies if this is out of line, please delete if you see fit.
-
Thank you for the comment, tmw. I appreciate your kindness and honesty.
The problem is, I do not think an apostate being allowed on a Traditional Catholic forum can be "drowned out", not when he's allowed to criticize Traditional Catholicism over and over again. I'm glad you're against him being allowed over there, but the admin obviously does not mind it, and I find it outrageous. And for a moderator (who, I should add, I had actually THOUGHT was a friend of mine) to tell me to stop defending Catholicism against a heretic who's goal is to lead people away from the Faith, it is sickening, purely sickening.
Posters who present a danger to souls by attempting to lead others away from the Catholic Faith should be banned, the administrator should not leave it to members to simply "drown them out" or ignore them. And besides that, it seemed that more people over there supported Vetus than those who didn't. Jaynek in particular blasted me for firing back at Bonaventure.
Furthermore, I do not agree with SD's policy on women obtaining degrees, nor do I agree with the admin's tolerance of feminstic ideas being promoted.
I will admit that SD is overall better than FishEaters, I am not saying it is exactly the same. It is, however, worse in a way, because VoxClamantis did not allow Vetus to spew his heresy. She banned him, but on SD he can do anything he wants, and anyone who stands up to him is berated by either one of the mods or some liberal member. And the site's views on feminism are really no different than FE.
I understand that running a forum is not easy, I've been there before. But no matter how long one has been a mod, there is simply no excuse in allowing a Protestant to accuse another Trad of "heresy" and to suggest that the Church has "failed".
Yet, when I said that what Vetus was asserting was heresy, another member asked me to "prove" my claim. Unbelievable! Vetus is not required to prove his claim that I am guilty of heresy, but I must prove my claim that he, a Protestant, is in heresy?
It's not just Vetus and Jaynek that are the problem. Numerous members there hold liberal beliefs such as that. I must say that the site's administrator is acting rather lax to allow people like that on his forum, and a few of the moderators there (I'm not refering to tmw, whom I happen to consider very Traditional), hold some views that are questionable at best, and liberal/modernist at worse, to put it charitably.
So I appreciate tmw taking the time to share his thoughts and to urge us not to give up on SD. I still read the forum a good bit, but I'm afraid posting there is a waste of time. There's no reason to have patience with a forum that needs to make some significant changes that aren't likely to occur. If I am to return to posting there, I think I am owed an apology from a few people, and I think that some cleaning up would be in order as well. In the meantime, that forum is promoting abomination by allowing a heretic to do as he pleases, and I cannot and will not approve of it.
God Bless.
-
SSS, I think both of us know the goings-on in the world of Trad-dom can make almost anybody into a pessimist - but tonight is something of an exception to the rule, as your concerns and the concerns of other members have not fallen on deaf and ineffectual ears.
Speaking of rules, the Rules of Suscipe Domine have been officially amended:
"Non-Catholics are permitted to register, read, and post this forum. However, per rule #1 (as defined below), 'error has no rights.' As such, you are warned to not spread your errors."
"[Rule]1) Error has no rights."
From http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=42.msg85#msg85
This effectively neuters Vetus's heresy: if you or anybody else sees him or another member spew such filth as heresy, report the post with a reference to Rule #1. If that isn't heresy-proofing the forum from this point forward... I don't know what can do it.
And one more thing (as a certain trench-coated detective used to say): while you say you do not agree with SD's policy on women getting college degrees... the forum simply does not have a policy on the matter (although there was a thread on the topic). The only policies of the forum are found in the link I inserted above. The posts on SD are strictly speaking, much like the posts here on CI, only the opinions of the individual members.
Hopefully you guys can see that we at SD take the Faith seriously, and if you do want to give us another try (or a first), you're quite welcome to post on our Catholic forum.
-
I don't deny that SD's moderating team takes the Faith seriously, and I am glad that further heresies uttered by Vetus will not be possible through the new rule that was implemented.
However, it doesn't change the fact that Vetus was still allowed to get away with something he should not. The solution should go much further than just "We'll just add this rule, and if he does it again, we'll ban him". Reparation also needs to be made. I was done wrong, and more importantly, Catholicism was mocked and criticized by a Protestant, and his insulting posts are still on there. If true reparation is to be made, those posts in question should be removed, and I should be given an apology by the moderator who acted wrongly. Standing up to a Protestant and then receiving an admonishment from a moderator and an even harsher one from Jaynek was disgraceful, it was quite possibly the worst thing I've experiened on a Trad forum.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad SD has added a rule that should prevent Vetus or any other heretic from speaking ill of Catholicism in the future. But a Protestant had the nerve to accuse me of heresy and to say my mindset "wasn't Catholic", and when I merely defended myself and also defended Catholicism, a moderator asked me to stop. SD has taken the first step in the right direction, but they have still yet to make the reparation they need to.
That's all I'll say about it for now. Thank you again, tmw, for taking the time to explain things.
-
More reasons why the Fisheaters forum is a danger to the Faith:
She's clearly "reconciled" Catholicism with the world, unfortunately, she prolifically enforces and spreads her disorientation with militant zeal.
That is the way it works when a forum wants it both ways, ie trad and socially acceptable. She wants FE to be a face book and a trad(?) forum - so she ends up with a forum over run by NOers who, just like the conciliar church, falsely label themselves as Traditional Catholics - not all of the posters there of course, but most of them.
You are right too in saying it is a danger to the faith over there - especially for many sincere and those young people who are new to this conciliar mess.
This is why this supposed deal with the SSPX is so dangerous. It's not even about the Faith at all. It's about "being accepted" by the people that are clearly opposed to absolute truth!
-
That is the way it works when a forum wants it both ways, ie trad and socially acceptable. She wants FE to be a face book and a trad(?) forum - so she ends up with a forum over run by NOers who, just like the conciliar church, falsely label themselves as Traditional Catholics - not all of the posters there of course, but most of them.
When a "Trad" forum tries to imitate Facebook, the results won't be good.
-
Matthew, I apologize for this post being so long. However, my forum (along with my moderating team and my moderating decisions) are being mischaracterized by ServusSpiritusSancti. As such, I strove to keep this message as short as possible, while retaining the pertinent and important facts and quotations from SSS and Vetus Ordo's dispute.
End note.
SSS, please stop mischaracterizing what happened over at Suscipe Domine. You and Vetus were arguing about the nature and education of women. Vetus Ordo took a shot at your preference for Pius XI and his opinions over the opinions of the post-conciliar popes.
Vetus and you then had this exchange:
Believing that women can't pursue university degrees because it's "against their nature," or because such places are unique "cesspools of sin," or thinking that self-employment is a realistic target for most young women, etc., seems to me to be altogether dettached from reality and the contigencies of modern life. This is not mere prudence or a healthy scepticism of modern institutions, it's to live in a world that only exists inside one's mind. We were all born in the 20th century, folks, whether we like it or not. Let's try to make the best we can with it.
Again, that's not a Catholic mindset. We are in this world, not of this world.
Properly speaking, yours is not a Catholic mindset. It's more of a cultic mindset based on fear and self-reclusion.
As a fallen away Catholic, I don't think you have any place to tell me that my mindset is not Catholic.
After that happened, THIS exchange took place:
What a Pope has to say, even if it's not a Dogma, is not merely an "opinion".
That's your own selection of popes. I'm sure you're not that forthcoming with Wojtyla's or Ratzinger's musings, are you?
No, I don't follow their teachings.
I thought that what Popes had to say were not merely opinions!
If a Pope teaches something contrary to Church Dogma we're not required to obey.
Believing that the Church of Rome can fall into heresy is in itself a heresy. Apparently Christ revealed this to the Apostles.
I never said the Catholic Church can fall into heresy. Now you're putting words in my mouth.
Furthermore, it seems rather outrageous that someone who belongs to a heretical church that believes they're already saved and that Christ is not present in the Eucharist would accuse someone of "heresy" just because they don't adhere to the teachings of Vatican II. You obviously don't understand the position of a Traditional Catholic at all.
And the moderators asked you not to attempt to lead people away from the Catholic Faith. Not that you would convince me, of course.
Here, I'm pretty sure Vetus Ordo took a shot against sedevacantism, which you apparently construed as an assault against the Faith. I'm not sure how Vetus here was trying to "lead people away from the Catholic Faith."
It is, however, at this point that Bonaventure, a moderator (who happens to be a sedevacantist), posted this to the two of you:
Gentlemen, if you want to continue this discussion on the Church "failing," take it to PM. No more on this thread.
And yet the two of you, both Vetus and yourself, continued to make posts completely off-topic. And, after Bonaventure told you to take it to PM, you and Vetus had this exchange:
I never said the Catholic Church can fall into heresy. Now you're putting words in my mouth.
The solution being that the Roman Catholic Church is not really the Roman Catholic Church. I know how that one goes.
Furthermore, it seems rather outrageous that someone who belongs to a heretical church that believes they're already saved and that Christ is not present in the Eucharist would accuse someone of "heresy" just because they don't adhere to the teachings of Vatican II. You obviously don't understand the position of a Traditional Catholic at all.
I do understand it, Servum. And I also understand your condescension: it's a defense mechanism.
And the moderators asked you not to attempt to lead people away from the Catholic Faith. Not that you would convince me, of course.
I was commenting on the matter of women's higher education. I'm sure many Catholics, laity and clergy, would agree with me.
Vetus, unfortunately you are stating more heresy and you really don't deserve any further responses. I'll pray that you leave that heretical church you're a member of and return to the One True Religion. In the meantime, quit trying to lead people away from Christ's Church. It's annoying to have someone spewing heresy on a Traditional Catholic forum.
Have a nice day.
Which then led into this post by Bonaventure:
Okay, enough.
None of the moderators, nor the forum owner, want people on this forum to use "logic" to "prove" Catholicism is false. Yet, it appears on topics unrelated to apologetics, ecclesiology, and so on.
Enough. This goes for all users an potential users.
And even after that SECOND warning, you and Vetus CONTINUED TO DERAIL A THREAD. To which Bonaventure posted "Both of you, no more."
Then there was a long exchange between you and Bonaventure, which led into Bonaventure posting this:
I told both of you to stop, to no effect, twice, because this is something way off topic. It's not because I agree with Vetus Ordo and disagree with you, or because I am ignorant of what he's been saying on this and several other forums ever since his fall into heresy.
I know, the forum owner knows, and the other moderators know.
What baffles me is how the entire administrative team of this forum is treated, from all sides, as it were. If a mod asks a user to do something, he is publically questioned and even pressed. If a mod deletes posts that were in violation in forum rules, same thing. Explanations aren't enough, and we have to spell everything out, as if we had to.
Comparing this traditional Catholic forum to Catholic Answers is completely out of line. If you sincerely think this place, a little site for trads of varying stripes, is too much like CAF, so be it.
And then the admonishment from JayneK and your reply was this:
As far as respect for the moderators, as a former moderator, I agree that mods often are not shown the respect that they deserve. But just as you all had the right to not respect Vox's decision to purge Trads, I also have the right not to respect the decision of the moderators here to practically give Vetus Ordo a free pass. If that gets me banned, so be it, but if I'm banned instead of a Protestant whose motive seems to be to attack Traditional Catholicism, then it shows that something isn't right here.
You do not have a right to publicly question the decisions of moderators (which, by the way, you are misrepresenting). You ought to voluntarily leave if you are not prepared to follow the rules here. If you get banned, it will be because you deserve it.
If the Faith is involved in the matter, anyone has the right to question the moderator.
It is also important to note that posts by Vetus Ordo were deleted in the past for expressing error or contempt for Catholicism. One of our mods (tmw89) deleted at least 10 of his posts for such reasons on January 6.
On the reparation point, I am not sure how a digital forum can perform reparations for anything. It is made up by people, but the forum is one's and zero's stored on a platter in some nondescript building.
As you also noted, there is a subforum at SD for registered members titled "Concerns about SD." I'd post a link, but only registered members can see it. We will listen to any concerns you have! We've got five moderators, and we strive to do our best as Catholics.
Also, just for the record, I read through all the "reported posts" on Suscipe Domine, and not a single post of Vetus's was ever reported by you, nor do I not have any PMs from you regarding "bad behavior" of any other posters. Each of our five mods read the posts that are reported and we always discuss them and what actions to take (unless the actions are apparent, in which case the mod does the mod'ing).
ETA: The thread in question is here:
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=689.msg9588#msg9588
I don't think CI's forum software permits linking each quote to a certain post, otherwise I'd have each quote link to the particular post.
-
Kaesekopf,
1- I shouldn't have to report a post from a Protestant for it to be removed. You saw that Vetus was acting up and did nothing about it. If I had reported those posts the results would have been the same. If you had really wanted to take action against Vetus you would not have needed someone to report his posts to do it.
2- He hypocritically accused me of "heresy" and started suggesting the Church had "failed". Furthermore, his mindset that a woman with kids can and should work outside is dangerous to any Catholic forum because it contradicts Church teaching. Again, you did nothing to correct him for spewing that nonsense, just a little slap on the wrist from Bonventure.
3- I'm not going to stop defending Church teaching from a heretic. If Bonaventure wanted it stopped he should have taken care of the problem: Vetus. But no, instead he told us both to stop discussing it, basically letting Vetus off the hook.
No matter how you attempt to slice it, Kaesekopf, I'm afraid you're wrong. I did not do anything wrong. I was slandered by a Protestant who was spewing heresy, Bonaventure did nothing about it and instead chastised me, Jaynek poked her nose where it didn't belong and admonished me, and you did nothing yourself. I'm sorry, but the fact that you attempt to justify that is not respectable.
I am not "mischaracterizing" your forum. It's the truth, and I'm going to keep warning people of how Vetus is put on a pedastal over there by some liberal members and how the moderating team approves of it.
Thank you for your response, but I'm afraid you cannot justify Bonaventure's actions.
God Bless.
-
The quotes you provide from Vetus only prove that he was behaving the way I described. You just proved my own argument without realizing it.
By the way, I don't mean the entire moderating team approves of Vetus.
-
Apparently, Vetus is on a pedestal and we [the mod staff] approve of it.
News to me.
-
The fact that you allowed him to get away with that behavior shows you approve of it.
-
In response to the original post...
I have met Catholics who believe that 1) ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is genetic for some 2) in the case that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is genetic...ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is OK.
This was a priest who told me this. I have also met regular "Catholics" who say this as well. The diocese that I am in right now has evidently dealt with many Catholics who hold and speak about these views. Apparently, Rome dispatched an auxiliary Bishop to keep an eye on the matter. He has been here for 10 years, and I still hear people talking about how they think ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is OK.
I really think they should be excommunicated.
-
The quotes you provide from Vetus only prove that he was behaving the way I described. You just proved my own argument without realizing it.
By the way, I don't mean the entire moderating team approves of Vetus.
He certainly did.
KK, one can not be blamed for thinking it's particularly bizarre that Protestants are allowed to engage in sophistry against Catholics on a Catholic forum. Moreover, that's not even mentioning this insult that the aforementioned apostate sophist (vetus ordo) is apparently allowed to level against your fellow Catholic: "Properly speaking, yours is not a Catholic mindset. It's more of a cultic mindset based on fear and self-reclusion.". Whatever perceived indiscretion SSS may have committed on your forum should be qualified with the expected indignation any Catholic would feel after being assaulted by Christ's enemies on a forum that calls itself 'Traditionally Catholic'.
What are you too afraid of being a 'big meany' to properly conduct yourself and your forum in a just and manful manner?
Thankfully SSS, we have a forum like Cathinfo, which is not administrated by a sissy, and therefore silences heretics and apostates in the tradition of our fathers, consequently letting Catholics discuss the pressing matters of the day, instead of having to divert their time defending themselves from every insolent renegade with an opinion.
-
Did not KK say that Vetus Ordo's posts were deleted? Furthermore, KK detailed quite clearly that authentic Catholic teaching is not to be insulted and if so, the authors of such are to be admonished. Let this go already. You want perfect? Get to Heaven.
-
Did not KK say that Vetus Ordo's posts were deleted? Furthermore, KK detailed quite clearly that authentic Catholic teaching is not to be insulted and if so, the authors of such are to be admonished. Let this go already. You want perfect? Get to Heaven.
Select quotes were, others not, did you follow the link KK posted?
He allows Proddies to comment on the nature of the Church, engage in sophistry and insult against his fellow Catholics, and goes so far as to allow said Proddie, Vetus Ordo, to defend his perverted theology: " As for the Protestant Church promoting the idea that both parents "should work even without necessity," that's just one of those unsubstantiated claims that float around ready to be regurgitated at the most convenient occasion by zealous ultramontanes."
My above post stands...
-
Spork, the posts KK posted were NOT deleted. He said that previous posts from Vetus had been deleted.
Dellery is correct, Vetus posted rubbish and nothing was done about it.
-
I have been back on FE recently and it has a different feel to it than a year or so ago. Seems very passive--since when has Catholicism been excessively passive. The fαɢɢօt term "big meany" [I can't hardly even type this without a lisp] is a common "slur" found there these days too.
-
Dellery:
When I read Vetus's post that said "Properly speaking, yours is not a Catholic mindset. It's more of a cultic mindset based on fear and self-reclusion," it sounded to me (and it still sounds that way) that Vetus was attacking the sedevacantist thesis and other trends in SSS's posts. His statement of "fear and self-reclusion" seems to be spot-on. SSS continually admonishes people to avoid universities because they are allegedly cesspools of sin and that if a degree must be obtained, best to do it online so one is not infected by the spirit of worldliness. Sounds like "fear and self-reclusion" by definition to me.
I am not sure what the personal attacks are doing in your post, Dellery. Are they becoming of a traditional Catholic man?
And, yes, CathInfo silences heretics and apostates, but in the past permitted such pernicious opinions as those of the Ibranyi-type home-aloners and Feenyites. That Matthew banned the persons responsible for those posts is commendable, but it occurred after the posts were made. However, the current promotion on this forum of 'race-mixing' as a mortal sin and grave matter is a scandal to the Catholic men and women produced in Catholic Mexico and around the world hundreds of years before WASPs attached to it the stigma of taboo. I don't see how a Catholic could ever say or tolerate that "race-mixing" is grave matter. And yet it's published and permitted here at CathInfo without a word against it by you two.
Besides, a Catholic on the Internet should have a thick enough skin and sufficient brains to not be emotionally wounded by someone in error calling them a name.
Spork:
Vetus Ordo's questionable (anti-Catholic posts) were removed. The posts in the long post I made on page 24 remain.
-
There was one, maybe two posters who argued that interracial marriage was a mortal sin.
What's certain is that that person did not have much sympathy or agreement. He is someone who considers himself Catholic who had an odd idea. Not a Protestant who is favored while criticizing other Catholics.
-
it sounded to me (and it still sounds that way) that Vetus was attacking the sedevacantist thesis and other trends in SSS's posts.
I never even mentioned sedevacantism in that thread.
SSS continually admonishes people to avoid universities because they are allegedly cesspools of sin and that if a degree must be obtained, best to do it online so one is not infected by the spirit of worldliness. Sounds like "fear and self-reclusion" by definition to me.
Wow, you're quite "of the world", aren't you? You seem to buy into secularism, your mindset is not Traditional at all. I recall you making fun of a picture of some modestly-dressed women on here several months back.
Don't tell me my position is "fear and self-reclusion". College IS full of sin. I did not even discuss college degrees with Vetus, he made those remarks to me because I said a woman with kids shouldn't work outside the home. It appears that you agree with him, because you don't seem to object to it. The Church, however, disagrees with you.
The way you're acting is disgraceful, KK. Instead of putting the blame on a Protestant for accusing me of "heresy", you put the blame on me. I'm amazed that you allow something like that yet dare to call you forum a "Traditional Catholic forum".
However, the current promotion on this forum of 'race-mixing' as a mortal sin and grave matter is a scandal to the Catholic men and women produced in Catholic Mexico and around the world hundreds of years before WASPs attached to it the stigma of taboo. I don't see how a Catholic could ever say or tolerate that "race-mixing" is grave matter. And yet it's published and permitted here at CathInfo without a word against it by you two.
I hardly read the racial threads here, I have no interest in discussing the subject.
Allowing promotion of "race-mixing", however, is not as bad as allowing a Protestant to insult other Trads. I think it's sad that you can't take responsibility for your actions and admit that allowing something like that is wrong.
Besides, a Catholic on the Internet should have a thick enough skin and sufficient brains to not be emotionally wounded by someone in error calling them a name.
It's not about me being called a name, KK. You should never allow a Protesant to get away with accusing other Trads of "heresy" and attempting to lead souls astray. If I were you, I'd put an end to that, because you're going to be held accountable on Judgement Day for it.
-
There was one, maybe two posters who argued that interracial marriage was a mortal sin.
What's certain is that that person did not have much sympathy or agreement. He is someone who considers himself Catholic who had an odd idea. Not a Protestant who is favored while criticizing other Catholics.
I don't think Vetus is favored at SD. That he is allowed be a member is one thing, but to say that he is favored is ridiculous. It appears that some here completely throw objectivity out the window and revel in the burning the candles at both ends. And there is without a doubt a preponderance of racialist-type posting here. Why don't the best Catholics in the world to have ever lived, i.e. the posters at Cathinfo, substitute the accomplishments of non Anglo/Western European saints instead of focusing base energies on race.
-
Dellery:
When I read Vetus's post that said "Properly speaking, yours is not a Catholic mindset. It's more of a cultic mindset based on fear and self-reclusion," it sounded to me (and it still sounds that way) that Vetus was attacking the sedevacantist thesis and other trends in SSS's posts. His statement of "fear and self-reclusion" seems to be spot-on. SSS continually admonishes people to avoid universities because they are allegedly cesspools of sin and that if a degree must be obtained, best to do it online so one is not infected by the spirit of worldliness. Sounds like "fear and self-reclusion" by definition to me.
I am not sure what the personal attacks are doing in your post, Dellery. Are they becoming of a traditional Catholic man?
And, yes, CathInfo silences heretics and apostates, but in the past permitted such pernicious opinions as those of the Ibranyi-type home-aloners and Feenyites. That Matthew banned the persons responsible for those posts is commendable, but it occurred after the posts were made. However, the current promotion on this forum of 'race-mixing' as a mortal sin and grave matter is a scandal to the Catholic men and women produced in Catholic Mexico and around the world hundreds of years before WASPs attached to it the stigma of taboo. I don't see how a Catholic could ever say or tolerate that "race-mixing" is grave matter. And yet it's published and permitted here at CathInfo without a word against it by you two.
Besides, a Catholic on the Internet should have a thick enough skin and sufficient brains to not be emotionally wounded by someone in error calling them a name.
Spork:
Vetus Ordo's questionable (anti-Catholic posts) were removed. The posts in the long post I made on page 24 remain.
SSS was insulted by an apostate on your forum, your opinion is not a factor, he took offense to what was said about him, and I do too for that matter. The fact you actually let a Protestant attack Sedevacantists on your forum is all the testimony needed to condemn your blatantly IRRESPONSIBLE management of what is supposed to be a Catholic forum. Forum owners need to understand the responsibility they have to properly convey the Faith without scandal.
In all honesty the fact you would allow an apostate to attack Sedevacantism is nothing short of despicable.
Also in regard to this comment: " I don't see how a Catholic could ever say or tolerate that "race-mixing" is grave matter. And yet it's published and permitted here at CathInfo without a word against it by you two." due diligence would keep you out of these embarrassing situations...
Dellery Said: Sometimes the greatest punishment is getting exactly what we want, the Hebrews were punished this way in the past, who's to say their impersonators will not meet the same fate? God works through His Church, by making your ridiculous claims of divinely abominable ethnically mixed marriages, you give the impression that you believe the Church has been lacking in Her maternal guidance, and feel the need to fill a supposed void with your own personal judgements.
---
At this point in our discussion this isn't even about non-miscegenation, for which there can be noble reasons, but your insistence that ethnic mixing is an abomination before Our Lord, and that when choosing a spouse one should prioritize genetics and ethnicity above the faith.
---
This does not grant you the authority to personally interpret Scripture, and condemn a valid Catholic marriage between people of mixed ethnicity as being abominable. So in other words: You have no authority. If you haven't received your authority from the Church, from who God works through, any authority you perceive to have comes from your own pride of discernment.
You can search my post history for other posts of mine pertaining to this matter.
-
I don't think Vetus is favored at SD. That he is allowed be a member is one thing, but to say that he is favored is ridiculous. It appears that some here completely throw objectivity out the window and revel in the burning the candles at both ends. And there is without a doubt a preponderance of racialist-type posting here. Why don't the best Catholics in the world to have ever lived, i.e. the posters at Cathinfo, substitute the accomplishments of non Anglo/Western European saints instead of focusing base energies on race.
Well, I'm not defending allowing those posts to stand here. I have asked for bans of posters who I consider to have a non-Catholic agenda. I'm not tolerant of something just because it's politically incorrect.
I haven't been on the site but it does appear from what's been recounted here that the poster in question was being shown some favor by mods there.
The real threat on nearly all trad boards is creeping liberalism, that is apparent everywhere.
The danger of allowing some slightly crazy racists on this board is that their posts are used to discredit the rest of us. That being said, it's hard to draw the line without acting like a liberal. I think calling miscegenation a mortal sin is crossing the line though.
-
The real threat to Catholic tradition is liberalism, not any sort of rigorism.
Now it's true that rigorists can cause problems. However, trads in general are not rigorists no matter what anyone says.
The three main problems facing Tradition seem to be:
1) liberalism (feminism, laxism, suburban bourgeois values)
2) sectarianism (excessive concern with particulars)
3) authoritarianism (excessive submission to the will that suggests a lack of knowledge and self-assuredness with regard to Faith)
These three taken together amplify the discord in the Traditional Catholic movement.
So far the Resistance is still relatively free of these problems. It's very fortunate.
All three need to be vigilantly guarded against.
-
There was one, maybe two posters who argued that interracial marriage was a mortal sin.
What's certain is that that person did not have much sympathy or agreement. He is someone who considers himself Catholic who had an odd idea. Not a Protestant who is favored while criticizing other Catholics.
I don't think Vetus is favored at SD. That he is allowed be a member is one thing, but to say that he is favored is ridiculous. It appears that some here completely throw objectivity out the window and revel in the burning the candles at both ends. And there is without a doubt a preponderance of racialist-type posting here. Why don't the best Catholics in the world to have ever lived, i.e. the posters at Cathinfo, substitute the accomplishments of non Anglo/Western European saints instead of focusing base energies on race.
Only two other members on SD sided with me and against Vetus. That should give you a general idea of what people over there think of him.
-
The real threat to Catholic tradition is liberalism, not any sort of rigorism.
Now it's true that rigorists can cause problems. However, trads in general are not rigorists no matter what anyone says.
The three main problems facing Tradition seem to be:
1) liberalism (feminism, laxism, suburban bourgeois values)
2) sectarianism (excessive concern with particulars)
3) authoritarianism (excessive submission to the will that suggests a lack of knowledge and self-assuredness with regard to Faith)
These three taken together amplify the discord in the Traditional Catholic movement.
So far the Resistance is still relatively free of these problems. It's very fortunate.
All three need to be vigilantly guarded against.
#1: I agree 100%
#2: seems to be the rule of the day here.
#3: cf. #1.
In regards to #2, that is evident within the Society in regards to +Williamson. In regards to the liberalism/modernism that exists at FE, the comments by members there in regards to +Williamson's 2/10 EC is all the proof one needs to the fact that FE is to be avoided due to its aforesaid designations. A certain poster called the Bishop "odious", but he attends Society Masses. The 2/10/13 EC would be well received at SD(and here too).
-
If having me be a member of a forum means it is a bad forum, you will have to apply that to CI as well.
-
JayneK is a sanctimonious pain in the behind. Is there a word that exists in the English lanugage that is of a higher degree to describe her, eh, sanctimony?
Thesaurus entry (http://thesaurus.com/browse/sanctimonious)
That is fair enough. There is however no basis for calling me a crypto-Jєω, as some have.
-
If having me be a member of a forum means it is a bad forum, you will have to apply that to CI as well.
I didn't say SD was a bad forum because you're a member there.
I thought your admonishment of me was rude, especially considering the fact that you chose to take the side of a Protestant over a Traditional Catholic.
-
If having me be a member of a forum means it is a bad forum, you will have to apply that to CI as well.
I didn't say SD was a bad forum because you're a member there.
I thought your admonishment of me was rude, especially considering the fact that you chose to take the side of a Protestant over a Traditional Catholic.
I chose to take the side of a moderator over a person who did not respect his authority. Respecting moderators is a thing I have. If I noticed somebody dissing Matthew here I would probably do the same thing.
Then again, Matthew is older and more established in being a moderator. I would not have the same sense that he needed my support, so I might not. At any rate, it would bother me to see someone disrespecting Matthew or any other moderator. That is just how I am.
-
I don't respect the fact that a Protestant was allowed to smear Traditional Catholicism.
It's not that I don't respect the authority of SD's moderators. I don't respect the actions they took.
-
I don't respect the fact that a Protestant was allowed to smear Traditional Catholicism.
It's not that I don't respect the authority of SD's moderators. I don't respect the actions they took.
You interpreted events as a Protestant smearing traditional Catholicism. That is not what I saw and that is not what the moderators saw. Since they are the moderators, their judgment trumps yours.
-
I don't respect the fact that a Protestant was allowed to smear Traditional Catholicism.
It's not that I don't respect the authority of SD's moderators. I don't respect the actions they took.
You interpreted events as a Protestant smearing traditional Catholicism. That is not what I saw and that is not what the moderators saw. Since they are the moderators, their judgment trumps yours.
The Admin stated he thought Vetus was attacking the "sedevacantist thesis", using your faulty and subjective reasoning, the admin trumps the mods and therefore it's safe to say Vetus Ordo attacked sedevacantism.
Do you believe it is ok for a Protestant to publicly share his opinions on the Church, and attack your fellow Catholics on a Catholic forum?
-
I don't respect the fact that a Protestant was allowed to smear Traditional Catholicism.
It's not that I don't respect the authority of SD's moderators. I don't respect the actions they took.
You interpreted events as a Protestant smearing traditional Catholicism. That is not what I saw and that is not what the moderators saw. Since they are the moderators, their judgment trumps yours.
The Admin stated he thought Vetus was attacking the "sedevacantist thesis", using your faulty and subjective reasoning, the admin trumps the mods and therefore it's safe to say Vetus Ordo attacked sedevacantism.
Do you believe it is ok for a Protestant to publicly share his opinions on the Church, and attack your fellow Catholics on a Catholic forum?
I thought his comments about Sedevacantism were accurate.
-
I don't respect the fact that a Protestant was allowed to smear Traditional Catholicism.
It's not that I don't respect the authority of SD's moderators. I don't respect the actions they took.
You interpreted events as a Protestant smearing traditional Catholicism. That is not what I saw and that is not what the moderators saw. Since they are the moderators, their judgment trumps yours.
The Admin stated he thought Vetus was attacking the "sedevacantist thesis", using your faulty and subjective reasoning, the admin trumps the mods and therefore it's safe to say Vetus Ordo attacked sedevacantism.
Do you believe it is ok for a Protestant to publicly share his opinions on the Church, and attack your fellow Catholics on a Catholic forum?
I thought his comments about Sedevacantism were accurate.
Would you mind answering the question posed to you in bold?
-
I don't respect the fact that a Protestant was allowed to smear Traditional Catholicism.
It's not that I don't respect the authority of SD's moderators. I don't respect the actions they took.
You interpreted events as a Protestant smearing traditional Catholicism. That is not what I saw and that is not what the moderators saw. Since they are the moderators, their judgment trumps yours.
No, you need to understand that just because someone holds a higher authority, it does not mean their judgement automatically trumps someone else's.
If they told you that it's ok to go into a ѕуηαgσgυє and pray with Jєωs (heresy!), would you tell them they're wrong, or would you "respect their authority" and consider their judgement to trump yours?
I thought his comments about Sedevacantism were accurate.
Sedevacantism was not even being discussed on the thread. Furthermore, Vetus takes issue with both the sedevacantist position and the SSPX (sedeplenist) position. He thinks Traditional Catholicism itself is illogical.
-
I don't respect the fact that a Protestant was allowed to smear Traditional Catholicism.
It's not that I don't respect the authority of SD's moderators. I don't respect the actions they took.
You interpreted events as a Protestant smearing traditional Catholicism. That is not what I saw and that is not what the moderators saw. Since they are the moderators, their judgment trumps yours.
The Admin stated he thought Vetus was attacking the "sedevacantist thesis", using your faulty and subjective reasoning, the admin trumps the mods and therefore it's safe to say Vetus Ordo attacked sedevacantism.
Do you believe it is ok for a Protestant to publicly share his opinions on the Church, and attack your fellow Catholics on a Catholic forum?
I thought his comments about Sedevacantism were accurate.
Would you mind answering the question posed to you in bold?
On that forum people may share opinions on the Church within certain limits, regardless of their religion. The moderators determined that he was within those limits. I do not think that any forum posts should be personal attacks, regardless of the religions involved. As I recall, the posts in question were not personal attacks.
-
I do not think that any forum posts should be personal attacks, regardless of the religions involved. As I recall, the posts in question were not personal attacks.
Vetus accusing me of "heresy" was not a personal attack?
-
I don't respect the fact that a Protestant was allowed to smear Traditional Catholicism.
It's not that I don't respect the authority of SD's moderators. I don't respect the actions they took.
You interpreted events as a Protestant smearing traditional Catholicism. That is not what I saw and that is not what the moderators saw. Since they are the moderators, their judgment trumps yours.
The Admin stated he thought Vetus was attacking the "sedevacantist thesis", using your faulty and subjective reasoning, the admin trumps the mods and therefore it's safe to say Vetus Ordo attacked sedevacantism.
Do you believe it is ok for a Protestant to publicly share his opinions on the Church, and attack your fellow Catholics on a Catholic forum?
I thought his comments about Sedevacantism were accurate.
Would you mind answering the question posed to you in bold?
On that forum people may share opinions on the Church within certain limits, regardless of their religion. The moderators determined that he was within those limits. I do not think that any forum posts should be personal attacks, regardless of the religions involved. As I recall, the posts in question were not personal attacks.
Thank you for sharing all of these arbitrary factoids and opinions with me, but if you don't mind, I'd still appreciate an answer to the aforementioned question.
-
I do not think that any forum posts should be personal attacks, regardless of the religions involved. As I recall, the posts in question were not personal attacks.
Vetus accusing me of "heresy" was not a personal attack?
A personal attack would be something like telling you that you are stupid and whiney. It is about personal qualities. To describe a person`s ideas as heretical is not a personal attack. It is discussing ideas.
I do not remember the details of the discussion and I do not care enough about it to look it up.
-
Calling someone a heretic without proof is a serious error, Jaynek.
Vetus is guilty of heresy because he's a Protestant, and all Protestants are heretics. But you can't accuse a Catholic of heresy without proof. You should not have defended a Protestant over a Catholic.
-
Jayne -- still waiting for an answer to: "Do you believe it is ok for a Protestant to publicly share his opinions on the Church, and attack your fellow Catholics on a Catholic forum?" if you are unable to answer just say so, offering up acts of humility is a commendable practice.
-
Jayne -- still waiting for an answer to: "Do you believe it is ok for a Protestant to publicly share his opinions on the Church, and attack your fellow Catholics on a Catholic forum?" if you are unable to answer just say so, offering up acts of humility is a commendable practice.
I answered. Since you do not recognize my answer as an answer, I have concluded that we do not communicate well enough to have a discussion.
-
Jayne -- still waiting for an answer to: "Do you believe it is ok for a Protestant to publicly share his opinions on the Church, and attack your fellow Catholics on a Catholic forum?" if you are unable to answer just say so, offering up acts of humility is a commendable practice.
I answered. Since you do not recognize my answer as an answer, I have concluded that we do not communicate well enough to have a discussion.
Perhaps I am missing something, and since you're a lady, I'm assuming it's me who has the problem communicating.
JayneK Said:
On that forum people may share opinions on the Church within certain limits, regardless of their religion. The moderators determined that he was within those limits. I do not think that any forum posts should be personal attacks, regardless of the religions involved. As I recall, the posts in question were not personal attacks.
For clarification, because quite frankly it would seem my memory has failed me, could you please show me where I asked the following; What are the rules of SD? what determination did the mods make concerning Vetus Ordo's replies to SSS? what you think consists of a personal attack? and what you recall?
For the life of me, I can only remember asking: "Do you believe it is ok for a Protestant to publicly share his opinions on the Church, and attack your fellow Catholics on a Catholic forum?"
-
I was not banned. My account was deleted at my request.
Rosarium is a "conciliarist", or as most of us would say, modernist.
He was crazily talking about licensing his posts before she gave him the axe.
No, this is misrepresenting what took place.
The issue had multiple facets, but the final issues were the lack of ability to edit posts and the word filter which (without notification) changed certain words to "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ".
The licensing my posts example was not a serious attempt to license my posts, but an effort to make a point, a point which was tangential to the topic.
I am not a modernist. That is a grave error and a defined heresy. It is not something to be tossed around lightly. Libel is hardly holy.
Unless you are holding me to actual teachings of the Church, rather than your opinions, you should retract such statements.
Ah, sorry. I didn't know Rosarium was a conciliarist.
FWIW, modernists wouldn't be so successful if it was easy to immediately see their errors.
Or, you can be paranoid and see errors everywhere, without actually being able to show them. It is easy to find errors if they are evident.
I am Catholic and follow the teachings of the Church, which are timeless. If I hold error, I am ready for correction, but those errors must be held by me, not imagined by somebody posting about people they do not know.
I know many object to my personality, and it is not something which is beneficial for my person to stand in the way of what matters, but accusations of heresy must be made with some grounding rather than one's imagination.
-
I was not banned. My account was deleted at my request.
Rosarium is a "conciliarist", or as most of us would say, modernist.
He was crazily talking about licensing his posts before she gave him the axe.
No, this is misrepresenting what took place.
The issue had multiple facets, but the final issues were the lack of ability to edit posts and the word filter which (without notification) changed certain words to "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ".
The licensing my posts example was not a serious attempt to license my posts, but an effort to make a point, a point which was tangential to the topic.
I am not a modernist. That is a grave error and a defined heresy. It is not something to be tossed around lightly. Libel is hardly holy.
Unless you are holding me to actual teachings of the Church, rather than your opinions, you should retract such statements.
Ah, sorry. I didn't know Rosarium was a conciliarist.
FWIW, modernists wouldn't be so successful if it was easy to immediately see their errors.
Or, you can be paranoid and see errors everywhere, without actually being able to show them. It is easy to find errors if they are evident.
I am Catholic and follow the teachings of the Church, which are timeless. If I hold error, I am ready for correction, but those errors must be held by me, not imagined by somebody posting about people they do not know.
I know many object to my personality, and it is not something which is beneficial for my person to stand in the way of what matters, but accusations of heresy must be made with some grounding rather than one's imagination.
Don't you attend the indult?
-
I was not banned. My account was deleted at my request.
Rosarium is a "conciliarist", or as most of us would say, modernist.
He was crazily talking about licensing his posts before she gave him the axe.
No, this is misrepresenting what took place.
The issue had multiple facets, but the final issues were the lack of ability to edit posts and the word filter which (without notification) changed certain words to "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ".
The licensing my posts example was not a serious attempt to license my posts, but an effort to make a point, a point which was tangential to the topic.
I am not a modernist. That is a grave error and a defined heresy. It is not something to be tossed around lightly. Libel is hardly holy.
Unless you are holding me to actual teachings of the Church, rather than your opinions, you should retract such statements.
Ah, sorry. I didn't know Rosarium was a conciliarist.
FWIW, modernists wouldn't be so successful if it was easy to immediately see their errors.
Or, you can be paranoid and see errors everywhere, without actually being able to show them. It is easy to find errors if they are evident.
I am Catholic and follow the teachings of the Church, which are timeless. If I hold error, I am ready for correction, but those errors must be held by me, not imagined by somebody posting about people they do not know.
I know many object to my personality, and it is not something which is beneficial for my person to stand in the way of what matters, but accusations of heresy must be made with some grounding rather than one's imagination.
Don't you attend the indult?
Are you, Dellery the man, a pharisee?
-
Don't you attend the indult?
I am Catholic and follow the teachings of the Church, which are timeless. If I hold error, I am ready for correction, but those errors must be held by me, not imagined by somebody posting about people they do not know.
To make a claim of heresy, you must show Church teaching being defied, not your personal opinions.
FWIW, modernists wouldn't be so successful if it was easy to immediately see their errors.
So, what is the basis for the claim of heresy in me and what are my "errors"?
Your lack of information about where I have attended Mass is hardly a basis for such a claim. If your standard of orthodoxy would be impossible for the saints to meet, then it is not a true standard.
I have a blog and website full of words I have written, and any errors, even accidents, should be easy to find, considering I write publicly on moral matters.
If you show where error exists, I will work to correct it, however, if it cannot be shown, you should not make such sinful remarks about others.
Unless fruitful discussion on this matter results, I will not post more on it. It is a waste of effort to bandy words futilely.
St. Bernadette pray for us.
-
Don't you attend the indult?
I am Catholic and follow the teachings of the Church, which are timeless. If I hold error, I am ready for correction, but those errors must be held by me, not imagined by somebody posting about people they do not know.
To make a claim of heresy, you must show Church teaching being defied, not your personal opinions.
FWIW, modernists wouldn't be so successful if it was easy to immediately see their errors.
So, what is the basis for the claim of heresy in me and what are my "errors"?
Your lack of information about where I have attended Mass is hardly a basis for such a claim. If your standard of orthodoxy would be impossible for the saints to meet, then it is not a true standard.
I have a blog and website full of words I have written, and any errors, even accidents, should be easy to find, considering I write publicly on moral matters.
If you show where error exists, I will work to correct it, however, if it cannot be shown, you should not make such sinful remarks about others.
Unless fruitful discussion on this matter results, I will not post more on it. It is a waste of effort to bandy words futilely.
St. Bernadette pray for us.
Rosarium,
If I remember correctly, you accept the New Mass, quite vigorously defend the indult, and accept that Vat. 2 was a good council who's docuмents have been misinterpreted, these positions belie an implicit Modernism.
-
If your standard of orthodoxy would be impossible for the saints to meet, then it is not a true standard.
St. Bernadette pray for us.
That's true for many trads. Pride is what it is. Many traditional Catholics think of themselves as warrior keyboardists whose conceptions of being Catholic is insurmountable but only by them and their one or two friends.
-
Rosarium,
If I remember correctly, you accept the New Mass, quite vigorously defend the indult, and accept that Vat. 2 was a good council who's docuмents have been misinterpreted, these positions belie an implicit Modernism.
Implicit heresy? Are you God, the searcher of hearts?
If there is heresy, show it.
You have a very unreliable memory, which you seem to recognize in part, and if you make sweeping out of context and unsubstantiated statements, I am not going to address them.
Heresy is a grave accusation, and one not to be made lightly.
That you perceive me to be in oppositions to your opinions is not grounds for accusations of denial of any article of Faith.
-
Rosarium,
If I remember correctly, you accept the New Mass, quite vigorously defend the indult, and accept that Vat. 2 was a good council who's docuмents have been misinterpreted, these positions belie an implicit Modernism.
Implicit heresy? Are you God, the searcher of hearts?
If there is heresy, show it.
You have a very unreliable memory, which you seem to recognize in part, and if you make sweeping out of context and unsubstantiated statements, I am not going to address them.
Heresy is a grave accusation, and one not to be made lightly.
That you perceive me to be in oppositions to your opinions is not grounds for accusations of denial of any article of Faith.
Rosarium,
My opinions have nothing to do with his, and the fact that you believe the above quoted transgressions against the Faith are a matter of opinion has confirmed your guilt.
-
I was not banned. My account was deleted at my request.
Rosarium is a "conciliarist", or as most of us would say, modernist.
He was crazily talking about licensing his posts before she gave him the axe.
No, this is misrepresenting what took place.
The issue had multiple facets, but the final issues were the lack of ability to edit posts and the word filter which (without notification) changed certain words to "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ".
The licensing my posts example was not a serious attempt to license my posts, but an effort to make a point, a point which was tangential to the topic.
I am not a modernist. That is a grave error and a defined heresy. It is not something to be tossed around lightly. Libel is hardly holy.
Unless you are holding me to actual teachings of the Church, rather than your opinions, you should retract such statements.
Ah, sorry. I didn't know Rosarium was a conciliarist.
FWIW, modernists wouldn't be so successful if it was easy to immediately see their errors.
Or, you can be paranoid and see errors everywhere, without actually being able to show them. It is easy to find errors if they are evident.
I am Catholic and follow the teachings of the Church, which are timeless. If I hold error, I am ready for correction, but those errors must be held by me, not imagined by somebody posting about people they do not know.
I know many object to my personality, and it is not something which is beneficial for my person to stand in the way of what matters, but accusations of heresy must be made with some grounding rather than one's imagination.
Don't you attend the indult?
That makes him a modernist?
-
I was not banned. My account was deleted at my request.
Rosarium is a "conciliarist", or as most of us would say, modernist.
He was crazily talking about licensing his posts before she gave him the axe.
No, this is misrepresenting what took place.
The issue had multiple facets, but the final issues were the lack of ability to edit posts and the word filter which (without notification) changed certain words to "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ".
The licensing my posts example was not a serious attempt to license my posts, but an effort to make a point, a point which was tangential to the topic.
I am not a modernist. That is a grave error and a defined heresy. It is not something to be tossed around lightly. Libel is hardly holy.
Unless you are holding me to actual teachings of the Church, rather than your opinions, you should retract such statements.
Ah, sorry. I didn't know Rosarium was a conciliarist.
FWIW, modernists wouldn't be so successful if it was easy to immediately see their errors.
Or, you can be paranoid and see errors everywhere, without actually being able to show them. It is easy to find errors if they are evident.
I am Catholic and follow the teachings of the Church, which are timeless. If I hold error, I am ready for correction, but those errors must be held by me, not imagined by somebody posting about people they do not know.
I know many object to my personality, and it is not something which is beneficial for my person to stand in the way of what matters, but accusations of heresy must be made with some grounding rather than one's imagination.
Don't you attend the indult?
That makes him a modernist?
Not necessarily, however, the vast majority of those that attend the indult are modernists.
-
Not necessarily, however, the vast majority of those that attend the indult are modernists.
Most people can be said to be material heretics in some way.
However, to the extent that I could be accused of being a Modernist, I can assure you that I am not. Purity of doctrine and moral theology are something I have specifically and long sought. I generally learn from sources which are far older than the issue of Modernism.
Rosarium,
My opinions have nothing to do with his, and the fact that you believe the above quoted transgressions against the Faith are a matter of opinion has confirmed your guilt.
I did not say I believe the above "transgressions". I specifically wrote what I did:
Implicit heresy? Are you God, the searcher of hearts?
If there is heresy, show it.
You have a very unreliable memory, which you seem to recognize in part, and if you make sweeping out of context and unsubstantiated statements, I am not going to address them.
Heresy is a grave accusation, and one not to be made lightly.
That you perceive me to be in oppositions to your opinions is not grounds for accusations of denial of any article of Faith.
You have errors in what you wrote about me, and you yourself are questioning the veracity of what you have written.
For the record, I do not attend the indult, I do not think Vatican II was a council which bore good fruit, and I do think the Novus Ordo has valid sacraments when proper matter and form are used and the minister intends to administer the sacrament. However, this is hardly modernism.
Vatican II is something I generally ignore. It offers no clarifications or new definitions of doctrine and it has no bearing on how I live. Vatican II's docuмents have been evidently ignored and misinterpreted, and I will defend rational thinking. Even if I agree with someone's motives, if there are errors in fact, I think they should be corrected sometimes. This may be interpreted as a defense of the thing, but it is not. Just because I do not want to join the irrational and total condemnation of something, that does not mean I agree with it. It means that I think anything opposed must be defined and understood. One cannot froth at the mouth in railing speech, and forsake all reason, just because one thinks one's position in the right.
However, the biggest thing is how to live a Catholic life (http://blog.nonpeccabis.com/p/true-catholic-living.html), not how to conduct discourse on forums. I am not a bishop, priest, or member of any religious organization. I have no authority and the issues of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and the other things which have arisen which are questionable are not my concern. They offer nothing to me, and any judgement of mine on the validity of sacraments and rites is not infallible.
It is not my role to supplant the bishops. If they have failed, that is their judgement, not mine. If they are not valid, then God will judgement them, not me for on occasion seeking to receive the sacraments from them. If they are impostors, then it is their sin, not mine. If they preach error, I have not heard it, for my learning is from more timeless preachers of the Church.
-
Dear Rosarium,
You wrote: "I did not say I believe the above "transgressions". I specifically wrote what I did:" to clarify, I said you believed them to be a matter of opinion (mine) not that you "believe in them" generally speaking.
Also I am not questioning my memory, but merely pointing out that I am using it as a reference, and it's certainly not perfect. You're most certainly intelligent enough to know what sophistry is, so I doubt the contextual distortion of my words was accidental.
Furthermore, you're being very vague in your responses, and even resort to using straw-man argumentation. For example, this conversation never once touched on whether or not Vat 2. produced good fruit, or if the NO can be celebrated validly, this is a dishonest way to get your point across.
You also said: "Vatican II is something I generally ignore. It offers no clarifications or new definitions of doctrine and it has no bearing on how I live. Vatican II's docuмents have been evidently ignored and misinterpreted, and I will defend rational thinking. Even if I agree with someone's motives, if there are errors in fact, I think they should be corrected sometimes. This may be interpreted as a defense of the thing, but it is not. Just because I do not want to join the irrational and total condemnation of something, that does not mean I agree with it. It means that I think anything opposed must be defined and understood. One cannot froth at the mouth in railing speech, and forsake all reason, just because one thinks one's position in the right."
The rejection of Vat. 2 is not irrational in any way, the texts of the council were purposely left vague and ambiguous because according to the dialectical nature of the Scholastic method, contradictory/unacceptable opinions must be introduced in a way that prevents them from getting discarded at the schema level.
In order to fully grasp the revolutionary power grab that happened at the council, and why giving the council docuмents any credence whatsoever is in effect supporting this revolution, many recommend reading the book "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber"
Moreover, you also wrote: "I have no authority and the issues of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and the other things which have arisen which are questionable are not my concern."
They are most certainly your concern, unless you're totally apathetic to watching our Lord's Church get molested, even then it's still your concern because our Lord has certainly given you talents to be used for the good of your soul and the Church, and we will be judged by the way we use our talents.
Our Lord tells us anything we need he will provide, does this mean not to hunt or farm? Of course not.
If you defend the indult, accept that Vat. 2 was a good council steered by well meaning men, and accept that the NO is a Catholic Mass, you're a modernist.
God never changes, and neither does the Faith.
-
Dear Rosarium,
You wrote: "I did not say I believe the above "transgressions". I specifically wrote what I did:" to clarify, I said you believed them to be a matter of opinion (mine) not that you "believe in them" generally speaking.
By opinion I meant that you could not hold others to them, as you are not infallible.
Also I am not questioning my memory, but merely pointing out that I am using it as a reference, and it's certainly not perfect. You're most certainly intelligent enough to know what sophistry is, so I doubt the contextual distortion of my words was accidental.
Well, you made an error and you are not meeting the standard I presented. I asked you to demonstrate heresy if it exists.
So far, you have not met any such standard, but just repeat accusations and present vague topics.
Furthermore, you're being very vague in your responses, and even resort to using straw-man argumentation. For example, this conversation never once touched on whether or not Vat 2. produced good fruit, or if the NO can be celebrated validly, this is a dishonest way to get your point across.
You were vague in your "evidence" of heresy.
Retract your statement, prove it to be true, or stand by it. It does not matter to me. But it matters to you...eventually.
The rejection of Vat. 2 is not irrational in any way,
Sophistry?
I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I was saying any defense could be seen if I were addressing an irrational attack.
Any criticism of Vatican II and its fruits must be rational.
the texts of the council were purposely left vague and ambiguous because according to the dialectical nature of the Scholastic method, contradictory/unacceptable opinions must be introduced in a way that prevents them from getting discarded at the schema level.
In order to fully grasp the revolutionary power grab that happened at the council, and why giving the council docuмents any credence whatsoever is in effect supporting this revolution, many recommend reading the book "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber"
Like I wrote before, Vatican II does not present any new doctrines for us to hold, and it has limited use.
If you still think I am a Modernist, you should specifically and clearly demonstrate it.
Present the error, and present the article of Faith being opposed in a clear manner.
They are most certainly your concern, unless you're totally apathetic to watching our Lord's Church get molested, even then it's still your concern because our Lord has certainly given you talents to be used for the good of your soul and the Church, and we will be judged by the way we use our talents.
Our Lord tells us anything we need he will provide, does this mean not to hunt or farm? Of course not.
You are holding me to a highly specific course of action.
What is your basis for claiming that a lay person, a simple Catholic man, is somehow supposed to get involved with Church councils and the domain of bishops?
You are twisting my words. I never said I was apathetic.
If you cannot conduct discourse with reason and prudence, refrain from it. Just retract your statement and let the idea of the person called "Rosarium" fade into recesses of the Internet.
If you defend the indult, accept that Vat. 2 was a good council steered by well meaning men, and accept that the NO is a Catholic Mass, you're a modernist.
God never changes, and neither does the Faith.
You have failed to meet any reasonable standard of defense of the charge of heresy.
I suggest you just forget about me. If you wish to offer correction, please review what I have written on my blog, or if you happen to know me in person, offer correction for any errors you see in my conduct. I have little regard for the person, including myself, and do not seek approval of anyone, especially people I do not know.
-
Rosarium,
I have my suspicions, but I should not have publicly labeled you a Modernist.
You have my apologies.
-
Rosarium,
I have my suspicions, but I should not have publicly labeled you a Modernist.
You have my apologies.
Thank you.
It is natural to have suspicions, given how widespread errors are. However, one may find it better to give people a very high standard to meet for individual judgement of any kind.
I would not be surprised if ANY person who was publicly and fully a traditional Catholic turned out to have a pornography habit for instance, but I would never think to suspect an individual of it, and much less make such an accusation.
-
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is nothing more than perverted sin, plain and simple. Regardless of how much it is accepted these days, I will not accept that lifestyle. I don't glorify gαys because they are all over the news every day; they need to keep their lifestyles quiet, and out of the media, because not everyone agrees with it. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a total abomination to society, plain and simple.