I just wanted to clarify, especially since my last thread about this has been buried by time.
CathInfo is for Traditional Catholics. I would define Traditional Catholics as "Catholics who oppose Vatican II by more or less rejecting the Conciliar Church and its structures; and who attend alternate venues for Mass and the Sacraments -- venues where pre-Vatican II Mass, sacraments, prayers and rituals are used."
CathInfo is NOT a forum for any and all critics of the Catholic Church. It is not for Old Catholics ("Vatican II? I've been in Crisis mode since Vatican I"), schismatics, dogmatic sedevacantists ("Without being Sedevacantist you can't be saved"), dogmatic home aloners ("There are no licit venues for Mass and the Sacraments today" or "There are no valid/licit priests today"), or any other manner of extremist.
Let's put it this way:
If you found yourself transported through time, to a year during the reign of Pius XII and before Vatican II began, ALL CathInfo members have to agree that they would happily and with no reservations attend their LOCAL CATHOLIC PARISH. Not "stay at home because the CMRI/SSPX/SSPV hasn't been invented yet."
So anyone who thinks the Church collapsed in 1900, 1850, or 1550 had better pack their bags and leave. I'm not talking about big picture decline, or the fact that problems usually start centuries before they cause an impact "on the ground". I'm talking about full-on Crisis. The Catholic Church has *always* had problems with individual priests, heresies, etc., some popes have been immoral, and countless bad decisions have been made over the ages. But you could at least go to your local parish and attend Mass, and not lose your Faith in the process. All that changed after Vatican II. That's why we call it the "Crisis in the Church". The Pope himself started participating in the dismantling of the Church, and meanwhile the Church changed practically *everything* about the Catholic Faith. Even things that can't or shouldn't be changed.
While I'm at it...
If you think the number of true, Faithful Catholics worldwide number in the dozens, or even in the low hundreds, you need to leave. The Remnant isn't that small.
That's how I would define an "extremist".
Recap - Definition - examples of "extremist" (followed by what they believe
in parentheses):
1.) Old Catholics ("Vatican II? I've been in Crisis mode since Vatican I")
2.) schismatics, dogmatic sedevacantists ("Without being Sedevacantist
you can't be saved")
3. a) dogmatic home-aloners ("There are no licit venues for Mass and
the Sacraments today") or,
3. b) dogmatic home-aloners ("There are no valid/licit priests today")
4.) Finally, the remainder without-a-name ("The number of true, Faithful
Catholics worldwide number in the dozens, or even in the low hundreds")
Thanks Matthew!
Today you taught me I'm not an extremist! If trouble ever comes my way, can I use you as a character witness?!
It's great to see members that depend on each other for support.
Let's see how the online dictionary sees this:ex·trem·ist
[ik-stree-mist] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who goes to extremes, especially in political matters.
2.
a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices.
Well, that's a bit vague. What about the urban dictionary?
This was a hoot, so I thought members might enjoy seeing it..........1. extremist
Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on more
77 up, 29 down
One who has beliefs which are highly disagreeable to the vast majority of the population.
People who want to abolish the government, those who want to kill all people of a specific ethnic group, and those who advocate complete laissez-faire capitalism are all extremists.
Notice, if you will, the implication: liberals, Obama fans, Saul Alinsky
groupies, sons (ideological or otherwise) of Frank Marshall Davis, are all
exempt from the stigma of "extremist" and one therefore must ask: Why
is that? (The author does mention Communism and Socialism, below,
making the excuse that extremist "can be applied to anyone regardless of
factors as universal as... POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY") And the answer is not
long in coming: because the word "extremist" is their word, that's why. It is
a dirty word that they use to malign OTHERS and they will not have it used
to malign themselves. So when you buy into that way of thinking, you are
kow-towing to their lead, and you are becoming their subject under their
rules. They claim to own it, and they demand to define it, but you would be
hard-pressed to see an honest, open definition published anywhere, and
that is then the reason for the "urban dictionary," for it says what the
liberals don't dare say -- within limits, and if they're accused of believing
what is written here, they can simply deny it -- "That's not our work!" And
finally, but not least in importance, you won't find Jєωs as an example
either, EVEN THOUGH their numbers are literally a small minority of the
population. For the reason is, that due to the persistent work of the Jєωs
taking advantage of the weaknesses of others, their own outlook on many
things, including themselves, has become popularized during this
abominable post-Vatican II era. Bottom line, the Mainstream Media (MSM)
would love to see traditional Catholics arguing over what "extremist" means,
because to them, we are ALL extremists! Isn't that funny? Ha, ha, ha, ha.
But seriously: When we follow their lead and attempt to label someone else
with the moniker like this we play right into their hands. That's what they,
and their Jєωιѕн masters want us to do. We thereby would help them do
their damage against us by doing their damage ourselves.
That was so easy it's not even funny! 2. Extremist
Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on more
58 up, 25 down
Somebody that thinks differently than you. Anybody that has an opinion that differs from current government policy. This term allows politicians to speak of their rival's agendas without actually having to explain exactly what their rival's beliefs are.
The war on Iraq was supported by right-wing extremists.
The World Trade Center was attacked by religious extremists.
The anti-war protesters were leftwing extremists.
Note: I went through this #3 def. and corrected a lot of spacing errors that
are all through the online version, which tells me the author is not very
cultured. I have a hunch that he's black, but that has nothing inherently to
do with his lack of culture (statistically, it has A LOT to do with it, though). 3. extremist
Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on more
38 up, 14 down
AN EXTREMIST IS SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTS AN IDEA, CAUSE, OR SET OF VALUES SO ADAMANTLY AND WITHOUT COMPROMISE THAT SAID PERSON WILL USE THEIR IDEAS TO JUSTIFY ANYTHING THEY DO. This term can be applied to ANYONE regardless of factors as universal as;
[sic] ETHNICITY (African, Caucasian, Hispanic, Arabic, Southeast Asian etc) GENDER/ORIENTATION (Male, Female, transgendered, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, heterosɛҳuąƖ, bisɛҳuąƖ) RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION (or lack thereof) (Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism etc) OCCUPATION!!! (Teacher, politician, musician, clergman/woman, soldier etc)...Or as regional (BECAUSE SOME OF US DON"T PRESCRIBE
[sic] TO THIS) as;
[sic] POLITICAL PARTY MEMBERSHIP (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Conservative, etc) POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY (Communism, Socialism, Anarchism, Nationalism, etc) SELF-PRESCRIBED
[sic] CULTURAL IDENTITY (Punk, Gangsta, Hippie, Goth, etc) all because
extremism does not discriminate, although its practitioners do.
Also, please note that few extreme individuals who possess a thorough understanding of the term and its implications actually CHOOSE to describe themselves as "extremists". The truth of the matter is that EXTREMISTS ARE BY DEFINITION ALMOST ENTIRELY IMMERSED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND/OR SHARED SENSE OF SUPERIORITY. THEREFORE THEY TYPICALLY CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT THEIR PARTICULAR STRAIN OF EXTREMISM IS NOT "EXTREME".
IN THE WARPED MIND OF THE EXTREMIST, EXTREMISM IS THE ONLY RATIONAL COURSE!
Although these examples are commonly known, I have included them because their connotations with extremism are obvious:
Adolf Hitler (because in his mind any act that furthered his plans for world domination was justified)
Osama Bin Laden (because in his minds [sic] any act that aids the cause of Islam is justified)
George W. Bush (because in his mind any act that aids the advancement of his political agenda is justified)
Listing ALL extremists is impossible, so I had better desist from doing so, lest I die of starvation at my keyboard for being EXTREMELY stubborn.
Catch my drift?
What a childish way to end an article! "Catch my drift?" But liberals,
after all are quite childish.
Of course, the author's own "extremist" views are to him quite normal.
It seems to me what he is describing here is really "subjectivist" but since
all liberals are subjectivists, he doesn't dare go there.
Extremist is one of those words that is up for grabs, one that is used to
describe someone else, whatever the arena is. For example, someone
who does not agree with the urban dictionary author, above, could say,
"I'm not an extremist! YOU'RE an extremist!"
And the accusations can fly back and forth like that.
In the end, was Our Lord Jesus Christ not an extremist?
Were the Apostles not all extremists?
Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, is the greatest extremist in history.
Think about that, and then get back to me.
Topic: CathInfo policy on the Crisis (Read 1001 times)