Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Matthew on July 04, 2018, 10:47:12 AM
-
I don't have time for this ____.
Bishop Williamson is having a 30th Consecration anniversary in 2 days, and I'm planning to be there. And no, it's not anywhere near Texas. So I have some things to do yet (packing!)
So I don't have time for a flurry of mod reports every morning. Especially now! And even after I get back and settle in, I have to look for a new job. So even next week I won't have time to delete dozens of posts per week because Croix de Fer called someone "brothel tenant", "whore", "stalker", "cow", and many other foul names here on this fine Catholic forum. He's just not worth it.
Croix de Fer jumped the shark, and that's all there is to it. He used to have about 100 downvotes or less (vs. 2000 upvotes) -- and that was last month! But now he has more downvotes than upvotes! If that isn't "jumping the shark", I don't know what is. What happened to the guy? Pray for him.
Meanwhile, I also get a flurry of "Croix de Fer tried to smash ____", "Croix de Fer tried to smash ____" e-mails as Croix hits the 17% downvote limit on about 10+ people he can't stand here. Everyone has one or two people they don't get along with, but his "crap list" is a bit too long to claim that he fits in here.
I don't know what got into him, what changed in his life, etc. but his current incarnation is being quite disruptive to CathInfo. Insofar as one person can do so, he is coloring the forum in a major way and I DO NOT like the direction he is trying to take the forum. And a lot of members have complained and noticed.
He is acting like a rebellious, cocky teenager whose dad didn't spank him enough -- and a worldly teenager at that. Again, there is no place for such a person on a Traditional Catholic forum.
Maybe he started reading too much material from worldly, bitter non-Catholics? We must beware who we keep for company, and what we let into our hearts via the windows of the soul -- the eyes. That includes books AND videos. If you imbibe 10 hours of non-Catholic material per day, but perhaps say a Catholic rosary for 15 minutes, guess which one is going to influence you more? "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh".
-
I enjoyed many of his one-liners (those that we're extremely uncharitable) and also the different perspective he brought to the site, but he took his insults too far and couldn't keep a level head. He was in "fight mode" too much. It's a shame.
-
I enjoyed many of his one-liners (those that we're extremely uncharitable) and also the different perspective he brought to the site, but he took his insults too far and couldn't keep a level head. He was in "fight mode" too much. It's a shame.
He had WAY too much of The World in him. His last posts were all about fist fights, testosterone, being tough or hard, attacking those who for WHATEVER reason didn't have the aggressiveness (or figure) of a 20 year old man who spends 2 hours a day in the gym, etc.
I 100% agree with Ladislaus on this one -- men who bluster so much are overcompensating for their own insecurity or lack of real masculinity. And what kind of "man" calls a Traditional Catholic woman foul names?
He has become/is becoming blind to vital truths touching on the Faith, especially the virtue of charity.
He values what worldly people value, and is "losing it" when it comes to the Faith.
As Ladislaus pointed out, even the issue of divorce and courts being unfair to men is a bit of a red herring, distraction, or non-issue when it comes to Trads. Because after all, 99% of men who complain about how badly the courts spanked or burdened them complain about how "I have to pay this much to my ex-wife and child support, so I barely have enough left for my new wife and children." A Catholic is not allowed to divorce/remarry and start a second family, period. If your wife is alive, you stay single. That's all there is to it. All a divorced man needs is enough to support himself. And according to Ladislaus, who knows many divorced men, even the "big bad courts" don't leave the men destitute or unable to support themselves -- in fact, they are able to start entire 2nd and even 3rd families! Again, not something a Catholic can do.
So what's the problem? Croix doesn't even stop and think about it from the standpoint of the Faith. His head is swimming with worldly values, ideals, with a bit of the Faith thrown in. Just enough to be dangerous, I'd say.
He hangs around guys who complain about modern women, and most of them are non-Catholic. They think the courts are unfair, because these guys want to be able to "move on" and find a new spouse and start a new household, without having to support their children from their first "failed" marriage at all.
-
Request a moment of silence and TAPS for Monsieur Croix de Fer!
https://youtu.be/O2sCjYUCAx (https://youtu.be/O2sCjYUCAxg)
-
I'm not happy to see him go. He'd become a problem, but I'd rather he'd get a level head and come back.
-
I'm not happy to see him go. He'd become a problem, but I'd rather he'd get a level head and come back.
Totally agree, Mater. I'll miss many things he had to offer. Hope he'll get sorted, settle down and come back. He certainly knows how to get people's backs up. But calling women pigs and whores was beyond the pale.
-
Bishop Williamson is having a 30th Consecration anniversary in 2 days, and I'm planning to be there. And no, it's not anywhere near Texas. So I have some things to do yet (packing!)
He just had a 30th Anniversary Celebration this past weekend in Kansas, we had him for four days. I am happy that he set some time to visit the other chapels. I hope you all have as good a time as we did.
-
Totally agree, Mater. I'll miss many things he had to offer. Hope he'll get sorted, settle down and come back. He certainly knows how to get people's backs up. But calling women pigs and whores was beyond the pale.
I hope everyone can see I really didn't have a choice. I can't start each day by deleting 10+ posts where Croix de Fer is calling other members foul names. And I got sick of all the reports coming in to the moderator about him and his posts. That all adds to my workload. And I'm not exactly an unemployed single guy! Far from it. I'm married with lots of children, employed, with a chapel and large property to take care of. I have better things to do.
The problem is, we all want the old "Croix de Fer" back, but that particular man doesn't exist anymore, at least not at the moment. He has transformed himself into something else much less positive -- which is the very definition of "jump the shark".
-
I hope everyone can see I really didn't have a choice. I can't start each day by deleting 10+ posts where Croix de Fer is calling other members foul names. And I got sick of all the reports coming in to the moderator about him and his posts. That all adds to my workload. And I'm not exactly an unemployed single guy! Far from it. I'm married with lots of children, employed, with a chapel and large property to take care of. I have better things to do.
The problem is, we all want the old "Croix de Fer" back, but that particular man doesn't exist anymore, at least not at the moment. He has transformed himself into something else much less positive -- which is the very definition of "jump the shark".
That wasn't just jumping the shark. He and that damn shark are in two different time zones, as far as I'm concerned. He went way out of line.
-
Croix de Fer jumped the shark, and that's all there is to it. He used to have about 100 downvotes or less (vs. 2000 upvotes) -- and that was last month! But now he has more downvotes than upvotes!
This is what I was noticing and, knowing that you use downvotes as a way to determine whether a member fits in here, I wondered whether you would eventually ban him.
-
This is what I was noticing and, knowing that you use downvotes as a way to determine whether a member fits in here, I wondered whether you would eventually ban him.
Looking at the downvotes is more of a double-check to make sure I'm not crazy. I don't ban anyone just for having a bad upvote/downvote ratio. It is just one "quality signal" as Google calls it.
But I look at many factors, plus I'm human so I look at intangibles as well.
A human is always going to make better judgments than any computer algorithm.
-
Looking at the downvotes is more of a double-check to make sure I'm not crazy. I don't ban anyone just for having a bad upvote/downvote ratio. It is just one "quality signal" as Google calls it.
But I look at many factors, plus I'm human so I look at intangibles as well.
A human is always going to make better judgments than any computer algorithm.
Yes, I know. I did say "as a way", but I should have been clearer.
-
He just had a 30th Anniversary Celebration this past weekend in Kansas, we had him for four days. I am happy that he set some time to visit the other chapels. I hope you all have as good a time as we did.
Where is this going to be? NY? Not far from me, might be interested
-
I had a look at his archive and realized that he used to be ascent. (https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/jews-and-great-powers/15/) I'm sure Matthew knows this but it comes as a surprise to me.
As far as his banning, could it be a temp ban?
-
Good riddance! Some of his articles were interesting, but I did not appreciate being called names. What he called me was quite mild compared with some other women. I decided to simply not reply to anything he posted instead of down thumbing or lodging a complaint.
I think maybe his girlfriend dumped him or he got fired, perhaps unjustly, by a woman boss.
Give him time to cool off, like 6 mos. then if makes inquiry, give him one more chance.
-
I hope everyone can see I really didn't have a choice. I can't start each day by deleting 10+ posts where Croix de Fer is calling other members foul names. And I got sick of all the reports coming in to the moderator about him and his posts.
I don't see what else you could have done, but I hope that the people who escalated the problem by calling him names reflect on their role in the situation. Few, if any, of the people he called foul names had not also attacked him. There were many posters saying some rather nasty things about him. It is likely this was a factor in his unacceptable behaviour.
Did he "jump the shark" or was he pushed over the edge?
-
I've gotten more downvotes in the last week, talking about feminism. Apparently, people can't talk about it without getting triggered. I'd say the same people who "complained to the moderator" about him were the one's calling him names. His response just took things up a notch.
As someone else asked, maybe he could have a temporary ban?
-
I've gotten more downvotes in the last week, talking about feminism. Apparently, people can't talk about it without getting triggered. I'd say the same people who "complained to the moderator" about him were the one's calling him names. His response just took things up a notch.
Yeah, everybody says they are against feminism, but the pattern of downvotes suggests that there are some people who support it. It isn't just posts with name-calling that get downvotes, but even perfectly polite condemnations of feminism.
-
I've gotten more downvotes in the last week, talking about feminism.
Sometimes it's not about what you say but about how you say it. There's an implicit undercurrent of misogyny in your posts to the effect of "most women are scuм and left to their own devices will be immoral and cheat". Most MEN, my friend, end up falling into sin at college. So it's a little imbalanced to single out women in that regard. And that's where the downthumbs come from. PS -- I haven't downthumbed you myself since the sedevacantists battles of a couple months ago. I will not let my sons live on campus at college in the dorm rooms ... occasions of sin are everywhere on campus. They'll be commuting to college ... to minimize that danger.
-
Sometimes it's not about what you say but about how you say it. There's an implicit undercurrent of misogyny in your posts to the effect of "most women are scuм and left to their own devices will be immoral and cheat". Most MEN, my friend, end up falling into sin at college. So it's a little imbalanced to single out women in that regard. And that's where the downthumbs come from. PS -- I haven't downthumbed you myself since the sedevacantists battles of a couple months ago. I will not let my sons live on campus at college in the dorm rooms ... occasions of sin are everywhere on campus. They'll be commuting to college ... to minimize that danger.
My anti-feminist posts were getting down-voted too, as were those of other women. I think that this time it is about what we are saying, not how we say it.
-
There's an implicit undercurrent of misogyny in your posts to the effect of "most women are scuм and left to their own devices will be immoral and cheat".
Sorry, but that was Croix's mindset, not mine. I am simply arguing that IF a woman loses her Faith and decides to divorce, then a prenup can help a man. As many have pointed out, the odds are low, but it's still a possibility.
Most who disagreed with me were making the argument that any rebuke of women is automatic feminism and hateful language. Meanwhile, EVERY post where I criticized women AND men, were upvoted - which shows immaturity. The downvotes are just coming from closet-feminsts who are not adult enough for such discussions without getting their feelings hurt.
-
For a marriage to be valid, do not both parties have to come to it without any mental reservations? Does not a pre-nup indicate a mental reservation?
-
Is the Church's Nuptial Blessing, wherein she prays for and reminds the wife to be pure, faithful, wise in her friends, supportive of her husband and honoring of her vows a mental reservation? I mean, the couple just got married 45 minutes before, and the Church is already praying for the wife to remember her vows?
A prenup deals with civil divorce, not the sacrament. It's an agreement that if a civil marriage is destroyed by either party, then here are the financial penalties. Just like the Church has/teaches spiritual penalties during marriage classes, so the prenup is an agreement as to financial penalties. If the marriage stays together, then the prenup is meaningless, so it doesn't affect anything.
-
I am simply arguing that IF a woman loses her Faith and decides to divorce, then a prenup can help a man.
Should a man assume this is a real possibility before he marries the young lady, why marry her at all? Same goes for the young lady. If she believes the man may leave her or beat her or cheat on her, etc, why take the risk?
.
The solution is not to take precautions on paper but to do the best you can to make a good choice before marriage, pray for each other a lot, and leave the rest to God.
.
He will take care of you if you do the best you can and trust in Him.
-
If the young lady is trustworthy and pious, then why does she care about signing a docuмent that will never affect her?
-
Should a man assume this is a real possibility before he marries the young lady, why marry her at all? Same goes for the young lady. If she believes the man may leave her or beat her or cheat on her, etc, why take the risk?
.
The solution is not to take precautions on paper but to do the best you can to make a good choice before marriage, pray for each other a lot, and leave the rest to God.
.
He will take care of you if you do the best you can and trust in Him.
Legal precautions can be circuмvented if the woman has lost all regard for the moral aspects of the act. She can claim abuse for instance. Ah, yes, the wicked husband severely spanked one of the children (this can be exaggerated). Despite what Pax says, it doesn't have to be proven in a criminal court in order for the divorce judge to factor it in. Women could have affairs without ever getting caught, etc. As you say, the only true precaution is finding the right person. And you don't go on how she presents herself while dating. You look at her family, her upbringing, and signs of her being devout. Look for women who, without being forced to by their parents, dress modestly and are devout beyond the mere requirements. Look for women who attend weekday Mass or have a strong prayer life. Then your odds of a stable marriage increase dramatically ... if you yourself have the same qualities.
And then, if despite all this, God wills to bring you the cross of an unfaithful wife, well then it's His will that we suffer those things for our sanctification. We have the opportunity to turn the other cheek and become holy in our forgiveness of such a great offense.
-
And then, if despite all this, God wills to bring you the cross of an unfaithful wife, well then it's His will that we suffer those things for our sanctification. We have the opportunity to turn the other cheek and become holy in our forgiveness of such a great offense.
Isn’t adultry a reason to get a divorce in the Church’s eyes? Or well, God’s eyes.
-
Legal precautions can be circuмvented if the woman has lost all regard for the moral aspects of the act.
Maybe partially, but not totally. I'd rather have an agreement than not.
Your argument is one based on extremes. "Well, the safety features of a car don't work 100% of the time, and even if you had airbags, and steel framing, anti-lock brakes and impact-resistant engineering, you could still die, so you might as well save $ and buy a crappy car because safety features are a waste." Just because something isn't full-proof doesn't mean it's worthless.
-
And then, if despite all this, God wills to bring you the cross of an unfaithful wife, well then it's His will that we suffer those things for our sanctification. We have the opportunity to turn the other cheek and become holy in our forgiveness of such a great offense.
You don't go hiking in the woods without water, food and emergency supplies...just in case. If you forget all that, go hiking and then almost die of dehydration because you turned your ankle and didn't have water, and it took you 4 hrs to walk back to your car. You can't say "well, God wanted me to suffer this tragedy." That's true in some sense- God did allow you to turn your ankle... but it's also true that you caused your own suffering through stupidity and being unprepared. Had you brought extra water, you wouldn't have almost died, even with a turned ankle.
The point is, humans must act in the world on the spiritual AND temporal level. Same thing applies to marriage. Your prep is both spiritual AND temporal (which includes legal).
-
Pax Vobis,
Are you against marriage license too? I only ask because after much reading, and listening to everything most have to say here. I actually don’t think a prenup is a bad thing. I can see how it’s been stigmatized, but my only request would be that the man signed a marriage license so he can’t just ghost us and remarry.
-
As you say, the only true precaution is finding the right person. And you don't go on how she presents herself while dating. You look at her family, her upbringing, and signs of her being devout. Look for women who, without being forced to by their parents, dress modestly and are devout beyond the mere requirements. Look for women who attend weekday Mass or have a strong prayer life. Then your odds of a stable marriage increase dramatically ...
Here’s where it gets complicated.
Most friends and family in my circle have found their spouses outside of their chapels and Sunday Mass.
Many trads seem to be choosing who they like and then bringing them to Church to see if they’ll eventually convert, and if they do then they’ll marry them. So essentially they are ‘training’ their own spouse beforehand.
Now I know that sometimes a convert can be a better Catholic than someone raised in it, but I wouldn’t want to take that chance with my future spouse and living a daily Catholic life.
I think this prenup stuff is for those who fear that their converted spouse will turn back to their old ways.
-
Isn’t adultry a reason to get a divorce in the Church’s eyes? Or well, God’s eyes.
.
No, adultery is not a reason to get a divorce. When a Catholic marries s/he is married until the death of one of the spouses. For a Catholic there is no such thing as divorce., and no reason for divorce (which is not the same thing as separation which is allowed in necessity.)
.
I believe that some people here are saying that it is necessary to go through a divorce, according to the state, in order to survive, but even then neither of the Catholic spouses may "remarry", because they are still married in the eyes of the Church and in the eyes of God.
.
Of course, an added incentive to stay together and work it out through repentance, forgiveness and the life of prayer and sacrifice.
-
He did seem to post a lot of videos from non-Catholic sources. I have been guilty of watching non-catholic content myself. It does change your world view if you consume too much of it.
It seems like a lot of younger trad-Catholics are becoming more intrigued by russian orthodox because russia seems less cultural-marxist than the west at the moment. I hope this trend doesn't continue because russian orthodxy is no alternative to traditional Catholicism. Russian orthodoxy is another path to hell.
-
.
No, adultery is not a reason to get a divorce. When a Catholic marries s/he is married until the death of one of the spouses. For a Catholic there is no such thing as divorce., and no reason for divorce (which is not the same thing as separation which is allowed in necessity.)
.
I believe that some people here are saying that it is necessary to go through a divorce, according to the state, in order to survive, but even then neither of the Catholic spouses may "remarry", because they are still married in the eyes of the Church and in the eyes of God.
.
Of course, an added incentive to stay together and work it out through repentance, forgiveness and the life of prayer and sacrifice.
Understood thank you!
-
Isn’t adultry a reason to get a divorce in the Church’s eyes? Or well, God’s eyes.
Adultery is grounds for separation. Once separated, a couple may go through a civil divorce for various pragmatic reasons, but they remain married in the eyes of God and of the Church and cannot marry someone else.
-
If the young lady is trustworthy and pious, then why does she care about signing a docuмent that will never affect her?
If the young man is pious and trustworthy, why does he need something that will never affect him?
-
Maybe partially, but not totally. I'd rather have an agreement than not.
Your argument is one based on extremes. "Well, the safety features of a car don't work 100% of the time, and even if you had airbags, and steel framing, anti-lock brakes and impact-resistant engineering, you could still die, so you might as well save $ and buy a crappy car because safety features are a waste." Just because something isn't full-proof doesn't mean it's worthless.
The only thing fool-proof is that a fool not get married.
-
Isn’t adultry a reason to get a divorce in the Church’s eyes? Or well, God’s eyes.
There is NO "reason to get a divorce".
There ARE reasons where separation is allowed (matter of choice), and also reasons where annulment is allowed (again, matter of choice). While this may seem minor , it is not. Some women choose to stay with a spouse where she has legitimate grounds for separation or annulment. The decision is her choice.
-
There is NO "reason to get a divorce".
There ARE reasons where separation is allowed (matter of choice), and also reasons where annulment is allowed (again, matter of choice). While this may seem minor , it is not. Some women choose to stay with a spouse where she has legitimate grounds for separation or annulment. The decision is her choice.
No, annulment is not a matter of choice. Annulment is when there is no marriage. The decision is not hers to make. It is for the Church to decide.
-
No, annulment is not a matter of choice. Annulment is when there is no marriage. The decision is not hers to make. It is for the Church to decide.
Re-read what I said...
.
Some women choose to stay with a spouse where she has legitimate grounds for annulment.
.
In this regard, it is her choice, since the paperwork must first be filed...
-
Re-read what I said...
.
Some women choose to stay with a spouse where she has legitimate grounds for annulment.
.
In this regard, it is her choice, since the paperwork must first be filed...
If a person has serious reason to believe they're not actually married to the person they're living with, I don't think doing nothing is an option. They need to either ask the Church to regularize their situation or seek the declaration of annulment.
-
No need to be snappy, TxTrad! I did read what you said, and I re-read it before posting! What you said needed to be corrected to avoid confusion.
.
Of course "some women choose to stay with a spouse where she has legitimate grounds for annulment" I don't dispute that. Or she may already have left him before petitioning for an annulment.
.
But annulment is not a matter of choice for the woman. The woman has not the right to determine whether she has the grounds for annulment. You are confusing the right to apply for annulment with the right to separate, which is not contested if the relationship is untenable.
-
My anti-feminist posts were getting down-voted too, as were those of other women. I think that this time it is about what we are saying, not how we say it.
A little of both. The "what" gets you a few down votes, but the "how" makes the difference between 3 down votes vs. 7 or more!
-
but the "how" makes the difference between 3 down votes vs. 7 or more!
Because women were taking things personally and being overly emotional.
-
Because women were taking things personally and being overly emotional.
Yup, that right there... 7 or more. ;)
-
Because women were taking things personally and being overly emotional.
It’s been mostly delivery. Some times you can come across really nice, and others it feels like women are a burden to you.
-
Intellectual debates are hindered from their purpose, which is to search for truth, by feelings and personal sentimentality.
-
Intellectual debates are hindered from their purpose, which is to search for truth, by feelings and personal sentimentality.
Or you know you can use your intellect to come across kinder, and not let your point get lost by harshness.
-
If a person has serious reason to believe they're not actually married to the person they're living with, I don't think doing nothing is an option. They need to either ask the Church to regularize their situation or seek the declaration of annulment.
With so much chaos in the Church, a woman can ask 10 different priest/bishops and get 10 different answers.
.
Rome rubber stamps all annulment requests.
.
I don't think either if those are good options.
.
Some women in these circuмstances choose to stay. Some women choose to leave. It is whatever God calls them to do and we can't fault either choice. God knows her heart.
.
-
and not let your point get lost by harshness.
Sometimes the truth hurts. Christ said he came not to bring peace but the sword. (Matt 10:34)
-
Intellectual debates are hindered from their purpose, which is to search for truth, by feelings and personal sentimentality.
I was on another Catholic forum called Archbishop Lefebvre Forum some years back and was set back on my heels at the reaction to a couple of threads of mine about female hair length and a proposition that Archbishop Lefebvre Forums have two separate forums for men and for women. I posted to see if I could ferret out any feminism on the board, thinking maybe one or two people might put me in their crosshairs. Almost the entire forum turned on me, with a fake seer who went by the handle DawnMarie (who actually knows Bishop Williamson) and her coterie leading the charge. It was especially strange because I thought most of the people on that forum were less infected with feminism than myself. And this was a forum where I was on good terms with at least half the members, the admin and (at the time) the two ineffectual mods Mithrandylan and TMW89. The men on that forum were afraid of the women on that forum. It was a pathetic display.
I didn't read any of the threads Croix started about feminism, but he couldn't have helped himself by using that black preacher to back up the points he was making. He was giving people who are infected with feminism a get out of jail free card.
I don't know for sure if the nature of a coed forum makes for a breeding ground for feminism, but it's possible. Since feminism is Marxism applied to gender, traditional Catholics also have a problem of being Judaized.
-
With so much chaos in the Church, a woman can ask 10 different priest/bishops and get 10 different answers.
When I've seen this scenario, it has more to do with an unhappy marriage and a spouse trying to find a way out. He/she usually doesn't really have concerns that the marriage is invalid, but rather is wishing that it was! (Or, even more likely, they left / were left a long time ago and have now found a new person they'd like to marry.)
Some women in these circuмstances choose to stay. Some women choose to leave. It is whatever God calls them to do and we can't fault either choice. God knows her heart.
Can you elaborate with an example? I can't think right now of a marriage impediment that a spouse thinks might exist that couldn't be resolved to ensure that you are indeed married. If you really think that your marriage might be invalid and decide not to pursue a declaration of nullity, wouldn't it make sense to resolve the doubt by instead re-affirming your marriage vows?
.
This raises another question for me. Say, for example, you think your marriage lacked true consent because it has become apparent that your spouse never intended to have children. Wouldn't it be sinful to ignore the situation and go on living like a married couple when your marriage was likely invalid?
-
When I've seen this scenario, it has more to do with an unhappy marriage and a spouse trying to find a way out. He/she usually doesn't really have concerns that the marriage is invalid, but rather is wishing that it was! (Or, even more likely, they left / were left a long time ago and have now found a new person they'd like to marry.)
Can you elaborate with an example? I can't think right now of a marriage impediment that a spouse thinks might exist that couldn't be resolved to ensure that you are indeed married. If you really think that your marriage might be invalid and decide not to pursue a declaration of nullity, wouldn't it make sense to resolve the doubt by instead re-affirming your marriage vows?
.
This raises another question for me. Say, for example, you think your marriage lacked true consent because it has become apparent that your spouse never intended to have children. Wouldn't it be sinful to ignore the situation and go on living like a married couple when your marriage was likely invalid?
I would think so, if you have doubts about the sacrament received, it’s sinful to ignore. same applies to Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, hence why they are given conditionally. Marriage is a state, and to act like you’re married when you’re not would be a sin. Better safe than sorry
-
Intellectual debates are hindered from their purpose, which is to search for truth, by feelings and personal sentimentality.
Yeah, except that many of your posts just drip with feelings and sentimentality ...
-
Almost the entire forum turned on me, with a fake seer who went by the handle DawnMarie (who actually knows Bishop Williamson) and her coterie leading the charge.
Ah, so DawnMarie is still floating around? :facepalm: Has she had any more visions/revelations?
-
Here’s where it gets complicated.
Most friends and family in my circle have found their spouses outside of their chapels and Sunday Mass.
Many trads seem to be choosing who they like and then bringing them to Church to see if they’ll eventually convert, and if they do then they’ll marry them.
I know. I've called this out once before. I know a couple extended family who pulled the old "conversion" marriage. Both had their wives leave and divorce them. If I were a priest, I wouldn't do these at all. If the prospective spouse converts after marriage, that's fine. Very few such pre-marriage conversions are real and sincere. As soon as things get tough, they magically revert to their pre-Catholic mindset regarding divorce and remarriage. I knew someone else who was dating a woman who "converted" (before they were to be married). They had a little spat, and she magically stopped going to Mass. People who "convert" easily typically do so because they don't really care or don't "see the difference" between one group or another. It's more of a social choice to them. I think there's more hope, to be honest, in someone who refuses to convert based on their convictions. In that case, if they DO eventually convert, it'll more likely be for reasons of conviction. People really need to stop dating non-Catholics because they find them attractive or enjoy their personalities ... the old hormone-driven dating. Those considerations rarely suffice to make a marriage last, because every marriage has tough times.
-
I know. I've called this out once before. I know a couple extended family who pulled the old "conversion" marriage. Both had their wives leave and divorce them. If I were a priest, I wouldn't do these at all. If the prospective spouse converts after marriage, that's fine. Very few such pre-marriage conversions are real and sincere.
I became Catholic while engaged to my husband-to-be. My conversion was real and sincere, although, due to the horrendous Novus Ordo instruction I received, I was incredibly ignorant about the Faith. For example, I thought that private Confession had been replaced by group Reconciliation services and did not even know how to go to Confession. I thought that the Rosary was from back before people were literate and someone like me had no reason to pray it. I thought that birth control was up to the conscience of the couple. Etc.
So, to a large extent, I did not even know what I was converting to. About the only doctrine I understood correctly was that the Eucharist is really the Body and Blood of Our Lord. I knew this because I had learned about it in a high school history class, not because I was taught it at the Novus Ordo.
-
I don't know for sure if the nature of a coed forum makes for a breeding ground for feminism, but it's possible.
I think that the feminism among trads is even worse in all female settings. When there are men around to give guidance and correction, the less infected women may respond to that. Without any men, it is less likely there will be anything to hold the feminism in check.
I can see the value of having a place for all male discussions, but I have misgivings about having an all female forum. It works the way it is done here on the CI women's subforum. While normally the women talk among ourselves, there is a male moderator able to intervene if necessary.
-
I became Catholic while engaged to my husband-to-be. My conversion was real and sincere, although, due to the horrendous Novus Ordo instruction I received, I was incredibly ignorant about the Faith. For example, I thought that private Confession had been replaced by group Reconciliation services and did not even know how to go to Confession. I thought that the Rosary was from back before people were literate and someone like me had no reason to pray it. I thought that birth control was up to the conscience of the couple. Etc.
So, to a large extent, I did not even know what I was converting to. About the only doctrine I understood correctly was that the Eucharist is really the Body and Blood of Our Lord. I knew this because I had learned about it in a high school history class, not because I was taught it at the Novus Ordo.
You were taught those things in RCIA?
What decade, 80's?
Scary!
-
You were taught those things in RCIA?
What decade, 80's?
Scary!
Good call. Yes it was RCIA and it was 1980. The "new springtime of the Church." ::)
It's practically a miracle that I ever found out what Catholicism really is.