Finally we get to Quis' grand explanation/ sermon/ psychoanalysis/ infallible declaration on myself and Catholic Tradition....
If you want me to point to an exact rule why he was banned, I can't.
Amen. At least he implicitly admits he was arbitrary. This should give all the fishies reason to pause. Even if you follow the rules you're not safe.
He wasn't banned for breaking an exact rule. He was banned for a continuous trend related to this section of the rules, especially the highlighted parts:
I was banned for a "continuous trend" "related to the rules".
Is this like the "spirit of the rules"? Emanations from penumbras of the rules?
Quote:
Another thing frowned upon around here is needlessly making enemies, the "gang-banging" mentality of group-think,
Quis' cheerleading squad are the definition of groupthink! I don't even think Quis knows what this word means. He sure can't spell it. Anyone who doesn't want to get banned simply piles on anyone on his bad side.
the overly-critical bashing of certain apologists or groups that are unpopular with many trads.
How many times has Quis bashed Neo-Cath apologists and JPII himself? I find this amusing. He even has a JPII quote generator on the site mocking a Pope, never mind an apologist. Again hypocrisy knows no bounds. If Quis had to live by his own rules he would have had to ban himself years ago.
Slander, detraction, and attitudes that convey the idea that "X is wrong about Y; X said Z; therefore Z is wrong" are not only illogical, they're mean-spirited. Even broken clocks can be right twice a day. Though it's hard sometimes, please try to discuss issues instead of arguing with people. I want this place to be warm and friendly and fun.
I can hardly believe what I'm reading. Quis personally slanders and detracts from people as his MO. In fact I can't remember an argument he's had where he doesn't hurl ad hominems and divines intent.
And, please, for the love of all that's holy, cushion personal opinions and conclusions about where to worship, etc., in phrases such as "in my opinion" or "it seems to me" or "this is what my family has decided to do" -- and don't pretend to be speaking authoritatively unless you are known all over the world as Benedict XVI.
If this isn't pot accusing kettle I don't know what is. His entire site and forum is him speaking authoritatively and banning others who don't tow his line. His form of "excommunication".
Don't generalize your personal experiences, callings, preferences, and sense of aesthetics such that what you've decided is right for you and your family with regard to worship, penance, and devotions, how to dress modestly, which music to listen to, etc., is a must for all Catholics everywhere. The old "my family lives on Communion Hosts and water like St. So-and-So. Everyone should! No, everyone must! It's Church teaching! Anyone who doesn't do that isn't a 'real Catholic' or a 'real trad'!" routine won't fly here. Purveyors of such arrogance and judgmentalism will get gone.
Quis highlights this section. This is another case of Quis divining intent and apparently reading souls. Nowhere on FE did I claim that anyone else was not a "real" Catholic or "real" Trad if they didn't believe in my personal preferences. I simply asked questions as to whether they thought x,y,or z was traditional or not trying to get these people to set some sort of standard for the term. Of course they could not. They ended up with a definition a liberal could live with (which is not surprising since they are liberals.)
It's a good thing Quis is not a lawyer because he'd fail miserably. All of his evidence is illusory and dependent on his and others' interpretation and speculation. It's all sophistry.
Someone asked how could someone with 5000 posts get banned. The answer is simple: he changed.
Start the violins/ theme music for the sermon!
I "changed" in that instead of taking his bait I continually bested him in argumentation despite repeated ad hominems.
I saw him go from someone who was curious about traditional Catholicism and interested in learning about the Church, and honestly wanting to do the right thing, and as confused about the right thing as the rest of us
Last part is incorrect. I was indeed never as confused about the Church as the rest of them. Unfortunately they are still confused. Before getting the Church right they need to figure out that girls have long hair and guys wear pants. That's step one. Then they can go from there.
to someone who talked smack about the Church,
"talked smack" against the Church?
Of course he can't come up with an example. This guy talked smack about everyone.
criticized everything he didn't like as unCatholic, modernist, or at the least "not traditional", and acted like he had an STD (not a venereal disease - a Doctorate in Sacred Theology). He even accused JP2 of heresy for the purpose of winning an argument.
Sour grapes since he was on the losing end of that argument. Hypocrisy since the guy mocks JPII at every opportunity. Instead of mocking a Pope I pointed out that at an audience he made a mistake in stating doctrine. I kept telling him it's not about "heresy" , that wasn't my point. An example of how he continually tried to bait to ban you and "win". If he could get me to play the "heresy" game he would have accused me of violating the sede rules and been done with me. I wouldn't bite and kept re-focusing. Then Caminus came in and obliterated him further. He actually stopped posting on that thread he was so embarassed. It was sad.
He did, as some pointed out, became increasingly argumentative with people,
This coming from a guy who shouted down and banned two posters before they got to their 50th posts over arguments he was losing.
and his arguments became increasingly disingenous.
My arguments were never disingenuous. This is about Quis' reading hearts and souls again. Because you won't bite his bait and go down his alley you are "disingenuous". He wanted me to provide evidence and prove a negative when he couldn't prove his positive assertion. Because I refused this ridiculous demand he called me "disingenuous".
I finally had enough of watching it happen and jumped in a few times, most recently on the discussion about "the consensus of theologians" where I called him out on what he was saying. People can read that and come to their own personal conclusions about how the discussion went. I'm not even saying whether they agree with my conclusion or his - I'm talking about how he argued, and my opinion of how he argued is clear in my closing argument.
Here's the thread
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=3303831Notice how he feels the need to point out the qualifier "I'm not saying whether they agree with my conclusion". That's because any rational Catholic wouldn't. My "style of argument" was mentioned above. He made an absurd assertion that the consensus of theologians is morally binding on us and after I broke down all of his proof he demanded I produce my own. But I never made an assertion. I only asserted that his was wrong.
He went down the same path on the Ash Wednesday thread by misrepresenting things I and others had said, along with an outright lie that's there for anyone who wants to bother to find it.
Here's the thread:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=3327531His claims are ridiculously untrue. A quick read of the thread tells you that. I'm actually embarassed for him that this is the hill he chose to die on in banning me. The arguments were straightforward. I basically mortally wounded him in my last post. There was nowhere he could go. He was basically shamed into the ban. Can't say it wouldn't have been tempting to me if I was in his shoes...
He misrepresented what I said and did so repeatedly throughout my time there. Check out the snide ad himinems as well. Those are his calling card. He sees what he wants to see. He sees strawmen he wishes and hopes his opponents would say but they never quite do. Then he pulls the intent card and says you intended to say the strawman!!
So I will knock him down anyway..
After several months of watching this, and being involved in it, enough was enough for me.
Trabslation: "After several months of jumping in to Stevus' threads baiting him and having my clock cleaned, I decided enough was enough for me."
That he lied on AQ is unfortunate,
These people need to read the definition of "lie". Lie =
not telling the truth. maybe "not" isn't in their copies of Webster. By the way Quis quoted Webster to me once as an authoritative theological source.
but it is more unfortunate that I can't say it suprised me after seeing how he argued his positions on this forum with what, in my opinion, was a lack of intellectual honesty and a disregard for finding the truth.
Translation: "The bastard simply would not agree I was right no matter how many tricks I used. He wouldn't take my bait either and didn't violate any rules. So I need to make up some good sounding other reasons. Ah, yes, he lacked intellectual honesty and disregarded finding the truth (my opinions)."
And this goes back to how he changed especially over the last few months. I don't know how else to phrase it, but he went off the deep end. He proclaimed JP2 spoke heresy,
Oh geez louise! Again with the JP2 heresy. What a hypocrite. I gave two sources which explained how JPII made an error in his audience regarding Christ's descent into Hell. Quis was obsessed with accusing me of saying he spoke "heresy". I could care less. My only point was that his statement in the audience was erroneous. He likes to use this non sequitor as a sound byte. He got absolutely owned in that argument as I said. It probably still irritates him.
he argues against the writings of theologians who taught at the Angelicuм,
Didn't Rahner teach at the Angelicuм? Quis actually said that Catholics were morally bound to believe artificial birth control was ok in the 60's since a "consensus" of theologians says it was ok. Pure madness. He wouldn't even listen to Pastor Aeternus on this who usually disagrees with me. He ended up locking the thread since he was losing.
he attacks other forum members over their clothing - pants on girls, wigs on men, etc.
Nope. Never attacked any other foum member. I argued the issues only. Only Quis attacks other forum members on a consistent basis. He and those who agree with him, have free reign over the ad hominems.
I thought he would snap out of it because a lot of people become "fired up" when they find tradition and have overwhelming zeal.
Dude, I "found tradition" like 3 years ago. And for all but the past few weeks you had no problem. I guess my "zeal" was delayed!
I remember reading every book TAN published that I could get my hands on.
Wow! There must be some teribble TAN books in Quis' area...
I remember my throwing around "Modernist" to things it didn't even apply to.
You still do.
I remember doing all kinds of crazy stuff that I regret now because it was, in two words, childish and stupid.
Is your irregular marital situation one of them? Truly Quis, since I know you're reading this, please get this straightened out for your sake and your true wife's sake and your kids' sake. Even if you hate me, please get this straightened out.
And besides that, I was wrong most of the time because I hadn't digested the material or learned enough to be able to digest it. The only thing that saved me, really, was listening to counter-arguments and seeing the point that others made. After getting thrashed a few times I decided I better stop shooting off my mouth before I read enough to at least attempt to make a sound argument. Socrates was considered wise because he knew that he didn't know. I'm not wise, but at some point I figured out: "Hey, I don't know." to enough of a point to at least stop being foolish.
Unfortunately getting thrashed in debates isn't enough of an incentive for you any more. Now you simply ban your opponents when the counter-argument is better! I wish I had run into the younger Quis who could argue to discern truth and not feel the need to win at all costs. Notice how the insinuation of this story is that
now Quis can be taught nothing and knows it all. I guess he is now a master. his theological sensei told him so.
People get sucked into this mindset of traditionalism that is a farce. They start questioning other people's "traditionalism", they start questioning everything the Church does, they start using the lingo (Modernist, Quo Primum, wreckovation, etc.), they start "moving in traditionalist circles", etc.
Anyone have a clue what he is talking about?
That is not what it is about. Traditionalism is first and foremost about being Catholic. It is not first and foremost about decrying Dignitatis Humanae; about decrying hairstyles, pants, or kilts; nor is it about smells and bells.
Quis, you weren't even able to define Traditionalism! you locked my thread where I was asking posters to do so. If Traditionalism is just "being Catholic" then I suppose Mahonet is a Trad since he's a Baptized Catholic. So much mush.
It is none of that. It is about being Catholic. At first, it's about getting the hell out of a crazy Novus Ordo parish for most people. Then it becomes about figuring out what the Church did before things went nuts after V2. Then it becomes about studying theology, reading encyclicals, etc.
Why is the NO parish "crazy" Quis? He never can answer this.
But some people stop there. They get stuck. They have all this material in their head that they can parrot, refer to, make great-sounding arguments with exotic words and Latin phrases on, but it's all empty. It's dead. It's worthless.
Sounds like him!
One has to figure out what it all means. And it means being Catholic. And it means the Church is the Church.
That clears it up! I don't even think he knows what he's saying anymore.
It means we can't forget to close the Michael Davies book and open the Little Office instead.
Or the Gospel section on divorce....
It means oftentimes the best solution is to shut up and pray instead of to rant and bray. It means reading St. Therese Lisieux as much as we read St. Pope Pius X.
Oh physician heal thyself...
Stevus, IMO, is stuck. God willing, he'll get unstuck and clear his head of this notion of traditional Catholicism that he bases on his standards and the standards of those he agrees with and realizes there is more than one way to be Catholic - traditional or otherwise.
Really Quis? So what makes someone a Traditional Catholic, eh? I'm still waiting for your answer.
And the first step is to realize what Socrates did - that we don't know. None of us do. The Church is in a state of confusion with the Smoke of Satan billowing out of every crevice in its creaking structure, and some of that smoke is creeping into traditional Catholicism as well.
And marriages....
Because, if we're right as traditional Catholics, and I believe we are,
Why, Quis?
Ol' Scratch isn't going to leave us be in our parishes with Rosaries and statues and Benedictions. He's going to come after us as hard as he can including using our own prejudices, willfulness, etc. against us.
Lusts for internet chicks..
When JP2 had to ask if the (near) previous Pope abrogated a Mass, that's the poster child of confusion. Clarity in the Church will come with the sanctity of the members of the Church, and that's one of the real goals of traditional Catholicism - sanctity.
Does sanctity include divorce and civil remarriage Quis?
He's going to go on a tirade about FE, and probably mostly about me and Vox. He did the same thing about Fr. Z. when he was banned there. If that makes him happy, fine.
He wrote this after I made posts on another site defending myself. No tirade Quis. I simply have the same right to defend myself as you are giving your people the right o calumniate me. Not as much of a problem with Vox as far as the site, except she is a bit of a man-hater and uses ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ avatars. But after finding out she left her husband to civilly marry you, yes that poses a problem. I pray both of you come to your senses for goodness sake.
Do you realize what you are doing? Pontificating morality on a Treaditional Catholic Forum while doing this? It's really beyond the pale. I'll be praying you please come to your senses and end the hubris.
At the end of the day it's really sad to me. I remember this guy struggling to do the right thing for Christ, and I wonder what happened to this guy.
Very, very sad.
Quis I still struggle to do the right thing for Christ. I will pray that someday you will too. Very, very sad indeed, my friend. Very sad.
Topic: For Fish Eater Lurkers: The Official "Stevus" Thread Response (Read 2714 times)