Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you  (Read 1427 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cassini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1536
  • Reputation: +790/-94
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2018, 05:26:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    What is "CIF?" It has a very specific meaning here in California. If you intend to mean "CathInfo" that's CI, not CIF.

    Catholic Info Forum = CIF when posting on Catholic Info forum.

    CI has God knows how many meanings.

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1536
    • Reputation: +790/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #16 on: September 17, 2018, 06:43:41 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • What do you know, you haven't been censored OR banned. So much for that little dig!

    I won't tolerate emotional zealots against the Resistance, no. But you yourself admit and point out that many CathInfo members aren't involved with the Resistance, or even sympathetic to it. So much for your BASELESS assertion that CathInfo doesn't tolerate free speech or a variety of opinions.

    I sincerely hope you discovered what you were after. There are plenty of posts on this forum giving you all the arguments and evidence why the Resistance exists. I'm happy for you that you find your local SSPX chapel unchanged, but mark my words the changes at the top WILL percolate down to the chapels and individual pews eventually, if they haven't already. The leadership molds and directs an organization. The superiors form the inferiors. Ideas matter.

    I've repeated many times my own scientific data on this heading, for example interviewing people who stayed with the SSPX. They spout total nonsense now, such as the idea that an independent chapel is somehow "disobedient" or "less legit" than the local SSPX chapel. How so? Because the SSPX gets auto-jurisdiction after their 5,000th parishioner, their 30th year in business, their 100th piece of real estate, or their $5,000,000th dollar in the bank? Give me a break! Who gave these parishioners these ideas? They certainly didn't have them 5 years ago. What else can I conclude? There is only one possibility: the recently-ordained priests who served the San Antonio chapel for over 1 year have taught this in sermons, confession, and through peer pressure. They must have brainwashed these and other individuals. There is a groupthink going on there, and it isn't good.

    These people are being slowly frog-boiled to accept Vatican II, the new religion, and the leadership of the priests/bishops/hierarchy of that new religion.
    The District Superior (Fr. Wegner) visited my old San Antonio chapel and endeavored to convince the parish that Vatican II and conciliar bishops "weren't that bad". That's not the Traditional movement/Catholic resistance I signed up for. I was raised Traditional Catholic, and so I will remain until the Crisis is OVER. Only a complete fool would say the Crisis is ameliorating to ANY degree, much less claim it's almost over. On the contrary! Just look at Pope Francis.

    The SSPX has a messianic complex, and they have become very cult-like in the past 6 years. But the SSPX is nothing without the Catholic Faith. And they are starting to play footsie with Modernist Rome now, trying to get on the good side of the scandalous Pope Francis, so they are actively losing their only real value. Their money and buildings aren't worth crap if they aren't going to reject Vatican II WITHOUT COMPROMISE as they did for decades. If we're to judge an organization strictly by its wealth, I would pass up the SSPX and go right for the Conciliar Church. Even the cash and real estate-rich SSPX is poor as a churchmouse compared to the vast wealth owned by the mainstream Church!

    But we all know buildings and wealth aren't everything. What's important is avoiding the Modernist contagion. Vatican II must be destroyed. Vatican II isn't 95% Catholic. It is 0% Catholic. It is full of ambiguous statements, and a double tongue is a trademark or telltale sign of the devil's horns. The devil is the father of lies and confusion. And shall we follow Our Lord's advice to judge a tree by its fruits? Therefore Vatican II must be stricken from the record, burned at the stake, 100% of it. Every single document. Throw it all out and start over.

    In another thread Matthew I asked why allow a like and dislike option for every post. You never replied. When one gets a like, that is fine, but when one gets a host of dislikes that IS CENSORSHIP of a kind. If not for you, it is for me and perhaps others. There is no other thread, except flat-earth threads maybe, that if one disagrees with the subject matter, the dislikes come piling on. So much so that I for one avoid discussing my experiences with the Resistance. On no other thread do I experience such anger.

    There are many aspects of that one thread I would like to talk about but dare not. The walloping I have just received from you for answering your question thread makes me look like I am defending Vatican II and need a lecture to that effect. I am 76 years old. I was serving Mass from 1947 to 1957 and learned the Faith within six foot of the tabernacles of so many churches then. I served at many retreats and talks, the only ones I was removed from were the talks given at women's retreats. I experienced what Catholicism was like before Vatican II, churches so packed that if you did not come early for Mass you got no seat. I saw crowds outsides churches listening to Mass on a loudspeaker. I saw bishops come back from Rome and Vatican II to Ireland and fight against changes to teaching and practices until they left, resigned or died of a broken heart. I experienced the slow changes where our churches were stripped of their altars and sacramentals. I once received three beautiful brass and wooden crucifixes found in a skip. They now bless three houses, mine and two of my daughters to remind us of what happened. When the altar girls first arrived I objected with the PP. I saw the pews gradually empty, and saw Mass-goers reading Sunday newspapers at Mass. One Sunday I shouted at them and they looked at me like I was nut-case.

    For years I searched for the Church of my youth and many years later found it with the SSPX. Where else could one rear children in the Catholic faith if there was not a church to bring them to on a Sunday or Holy day of obligation in the company of other like-minded Catholic families. Where else would they get to receive Holy Communion or Confirmation like I got as a child? Until I hear a teaching that contradicts my Catholic understanding, I will continue to go to my little SSPX chapel and support children growing up in an environment that I was reared in. A hotel room is not an option for me, my children or my grandchildren..




     


    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6006
    • Reputation: +3475/-323
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #17 on: September 17, 2018, 09:13:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Cassini words -> when one gets a host of dislikes that IS CENSORSHIP of a kind.  
    I agree with the words above from poster Cassini ... it is childish to just give a dislike without explaining why you gave the dislike.  Without that feature, I do believe people would be more open to justify their position resulting with a better back and forth discussion.  Imagine a person posting their truth as they see it, and receive 3 + dislikes with absolutely no replies as to why.  In other words, it is like slapping one's face and run away a cowardly act. I confess, I myself have done that out of sheer anger.   

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3009
    • Reputation: +1402/-742
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #18 on: September 17, 2018, 09:20:53 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Unlike Cassini (one of my favourite posters here), I have no problem with Cathinfo being a Williamson/Resistance forum.  It is typical that a forum be associated with a specific position, either explicitly or through its prevalence among the members.  Fisheaters is Ecclesia Dei (FSSP, "indult", etc.) Suscipe Domine is SSPX/Fellayista.  Thetradforum is sedevacantist.  And so on. If one decides to join a forum where one one does not share its position, one must accept the consequences of that decision.  One either keeps quiet about the area of disagreement or one is prepared for some sort of push back.  To some extent, people sort themselves out based on forum position.  

    That, however, is not the only factor. Another is moderation style.  Matthew tends toward the "hands off" end of the spectrum.  At the other end, I know of a forum that, for example, does not allow discussion of whether women should wear pants because that is seen as too controversial.  Yet another factor is "forum personalities".  Some members post so much that their opinions and personality traits colour the forum.  This aspect shifts over time as the membership changes.

    No forum is a good match for everybody.  Since Cathinfo seems rather successful as it is, I doubt that any major changes are advisable.  The only thing that I could see tweaking would be the Anonymous subforum.  It appears that it is often used by people who wish to express unpopular opinions or nastiness while avoiding repercussions.  This is not its intended purpose, so it might be useful to prevent this abuse.
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3254
    • Reputation: +1979/-976
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #19 on: September 17, 2018, 09:30:36 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I have no problem with Cathinfo being a Williamson/Resistance forum....If one decides to join a forum where one one does not share its position, one must accept the consequences of that decision.
    This is common sense.  This is an example of accepting reality.


    Online Mr G

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 395
    • Reputation: +288/-34
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #20 on: September 17, 2018, 12:36:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What do you know, you haven't been censored OR banned. So much for that little dig!

    I won't tolerate emotional zealots against the Resistance, no. But you yourself admit and point out that many CathInfo members aren't involved with the Resistance, or even sympathetic to it. So much for your BASELESS assertion that CathInfo doesn't tolerate free speech or a variety of opinions.

    I sincerely hope you discovered what you were after. There are plenty of posts on this forum giving you all the arguments and evidence why the Resistance exists. I'm happy for you that you find your local SSPX chapel unchanged, but mark my words the changes at the top WILL percolate down to the chapels and individual pews eventually, if they haven't already. The leadership molds and directs an organization. The superiors form the inferiors. Ideas matter.

    I've repeated many times my own scientific data on this heading, for example interviewing people who stayed with the SSPX. They spout total nonsense now, such as the idea that an independent chapel is somehow "disobedient" or "less legit" than the local SSPX chapel. How so? Because the SSPX gets auto-jurisdiction after their 5,000th parishioner, their 30th year in business, their 100th piece of real estate, or their $5,000,000th dollar in the bank? Give me a break! Who gave these parishioners these ideas? They certainly didn't have them 5 years ago. What else can I conclude? There is only one possibility: the recently-ordained priests who served the San Antonio chapel for over 1 year have taught this in sermons, confession, and through peer pressure. They must have brainwashed these and other individuals. There is a groupthink going on there, and it isn't good.


    If I recall correctly, I believe it was a Fr. Scott article that explained why an independent chapel is "less legit". It had to do with not having a Bishop or superior to answer to. Bishop Zendejas, also said something similar, stressing the importance for a priest to be part of a structure/organization or group. He then emphasized that his chapels are not independent chapel but part of SAJM with Bishop Faure as it's superior.
    I remember also, Bishop Fellay gave a ordination sermon some years ago with a similar message, that priests should not be independent. Fr. Stretenovic, had a reply with some good counter points.
    Given what happened to the SSPX, I think it s understandable for some priests not wanting to join up with an organization just yet.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15699
    • Reputation: +8288/-2603
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #21 on: September 17, 2018, 12:42:22 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The only thing that I could see tweaking would be the Anonymous subforum.  It appears that it is often used by people who wish to express unpopular opinions or nastiness while avoiding repercussions.

    Or it's used by people who have been banned or who claimed they were leaving ... to continue grinding the same ax that got them banned in the first place.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3254
    • Reputation: +1979/-976
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #22 on: September 17, 2018, 01:23:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    If I recall correctly, I believe it was a Fr. Scott article that explained why an independent chapel is "less legit". It had to do with not having a Bishop or superior to answer to. Bishop Zendejas, also said something similar, stressing the importance for a priest to be part of a structure/organization or group. He then emphasized that his chapels are not independent chapel but part of SAJM with Bishop Faure as it's superior.
    I remember also, Bishop Fellay gave a ordination sermon some years ago with a similar message, that priests should not be independent. Fr. Stretenovic, had a reply with some good counter points.
    Given what happened to the SSPX, I think it s understandable for some priests not wanting to join up with an organization just yet.
    It's obvious to any catholic with sense that an independent priest is unnatural.  But so is the ENTIRE TRAD MOVEMENT!  

    We've had 50 years to experiment with the various ways in which a priest can operate outside of rome and the results are very mixed.  No one can say that an independent priest can help keep the Faith of his flock any worse than a "group" priest (i.e. sspx or sede).  In fact, it could be argued that those priests within groups have the extra temptation of getting sidetracked with issues of theology or controversy and causing turmoil (i.e. Fr Cekada), instead of concentrating on the "the basics" (i.e. catechism classes, schools, frequent confessions, etc), which many independent priests excel at, since they don't have to worry about travelling around the country and are able to offer daily mass and have consistant devotions (Fr Ringrose in VA).

    Fr Scott's attitude is just another example of the "we're better than everyone else" sspx-elitist mindset.  Which is why many of their faithful will accept a deal with rome - because they think the sspx will "save the Church".  Pride goeth before the fall...


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21899
    • Reputation: +19217/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #23 on: September 17, 2018, 02:03:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • For years I searched for the Church of my youth and many years later found it with the SSPX. Where else could one rear children in the Catholic faith if there was not a church to bring them to on a Sunday or Holy day of obligation in the company of other like-minded Catholic families. Where else would they get to receive Holy Communion or Confirmation like I got as a child? Until I hear a teaching that contradicts my Catholic understanding, I will continue to go to my little SSPX chapel and support children growing up in an environment that I was reared in. A hotel room is not an option for me, my children or my grandchildren..

    I appreciate your life-long perseverance and your love of the Catholic Faith.

    But why do you preemptively reject hotel room Masses? The Irish used to say Mass on rocks. Masses used to be said in the Catacombs in early Church history. How can modern-day Catholics consider themselves "above" such behavior? Isn't that a dangerous attitude?

    When Catholics insist on professional buildings for Mass or other smells & bells, doesn't that place them in a rather vulnerable position, open to blackmail and manipulation from priests and organizations with less than pure motives? After all, there are only so many groups that can offer church-like buildings for Mass. The SSPX could require a lot more compromises than they do today, but most people would go along with it -- because it's either A) stay with them, B) back to the Novus Ordo, or C) it's back to garages, warehouses, hotels -- and many Catholics (including you?) would rather die than go with option C.

    Personally, attending the Holy Sacrifice of Mass in a humble location is not beneath me. I am just grateful for the Mass and for the Catholic Faith without compromise.

    And you'd be surprised what kind of middle ground there is, between SSPX chapels and Mass in a temp location like a hotel room. My local Resistance chapel is in a converted warehouse of sorts, and we have the whole package -- stations, statues, a real altar and step, incense, High Mass, benediction, pews, the list goes on.

    For that matter, I've seen some of the Resistance chapels in Ireland and they are small but very beautiful. It doesn't take much for a small but fervent group of Trads to put together a workable chapel. I believe the SSPX monopoly or virtual-monopoly on Traditional Mass & the sacraments must be destroyed. Having control of 90% of Traditional Mass centers is too much power for a handful of unaccountable (answering to no man on earth) individuals.

    Bishop Fellay, and now Fr. Pagliarani, have no charism or authority whatsoever to rule 90% (just a rough estimate; I might be wrong on the percentage) of the world's Trad chapels. Their authority is completely man-made, like the current CEO of Wal-mart. There is absolutely no difference. Both are in power by God's permissive will. The SSPX is indeed part of the Catholic Church, but they are not the Church. God never promised that no priest or bishop would ever fall or make a mistake. Only St. Peter received this promise, as well as the Catholic Church in general.

    Here is the difference between the Church you remember before V2 and the SSPX today: The priests at your parish before Vatican II were under the authority of their local bishop, who in turn answered to the Pope. Today, the whole Trad world is made up of individual lifeboats. The SSPX is just the Wal-mart of lifeboats, consolidating over 90% of the lifeboats into their own organization, putting all the other mom & pop lifeboats (independent chapels) out of business.

    And we all know what happens when a Wal-mart takes over and becomes a monopoly: the company's profit becomes king and 1st priority, they forbid any kind of employee unions, they force employees to work extra hours without pay, they pay as little as possible, etc. A monopoly is not a good thing, unless it's a God-appointed one, like the Catholic Church. But the SSPX is not the Church; it was not founded or appointed by God. It is a purely human organization, even though they happen to deal in sacred things. God never made a promise to +Lefebvre that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" or, "Behold I am with you all days".
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3254
    • Reputation: +1979/-976
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #24 on: September 17, 2018, 02:11:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Agree.  The fact that canon law allows Mass to be said in unique places, many times with only a few items (i.e. wine, water, bread, candles), shows that Holy Mother Church puts a priority on the Holy Sacrifice being offered, which is more important than liturgical norms.

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1536
    • Reputation: +790/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #25 on: September 18, 2018, 11:57:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I appreciate your life-long perseverance and your love of the Catholic Faith.

    But why do you preemptively reject hotel room Masses? The Irish used to say Mass on rocks. Masses used to be said in the Catacombs in early Church history. How can modern-day Catholics consider themselves "above" such behavior? Isn't that a dangerous attitude?

    When Catholics insist on professional buildings for Mass or other smells & bells, doesn't that place them in a rather vulnerable position, open to blackmail and manipulation from priests and organizations with less than pure motives? After all, there are only so many groups that can offer church-like buildings for Mass. The SSPX could require a lot more compromises than they do today, but most people would go along with it -- because it's either A) stay with them, B) back to the Novus Ordo, or C) it's back to garages, warehouses, hotels -- and many Catholics (including you?) would rather die than go with option C.

    Personally, attending the Holy Sacrifice of Mass in a humble location is not beneath me. I am just grateful for the Mass and for the Catholic Faith without compromise.

    And you'd be surprised what kind of middle ground there is, between SSPX chapels and Mass in a temp location like a hotel room. My local Resistance chapel is in a converted warehouse of sorts, and we have the whole package -- stations, statues, a real altar and step, incense, High Mass, benediction, pews, the list goes on.

    For that matter, I've seen some of the Resistance chapels in Ireland and they are small but very beautiful. It doesn't take much for a small but fervent group of Trads to put together a workable chapel. I believe the SSPX monopoly or virtual-monopoly on Traditional Mass & the sacraments must be destroyed. Having control of 90% of Traditional Mass centers is too much power for a handful of unaccountable (answering to no man on earth) individuals.

    Bishop Fellay, and now Fr. Pagliarani, have no charism or authority whatsoever to rule 90% (just a rough estimate; I might be wrong on the percentage) of the world's Trad chapels. Their authority is completely man-made, like the current CEO of Wal-mart. There is absolutely no difference. Both are in power by God's permissive will. The SSPX is indeed part of the Catholic Church, but they are not the Church. God never promised that no priest or bishop would ever fall or make a mistake. Only St. Peter received this promise, as well as the Catholic Church in general.

    Here is the difference between the Church you remember before V2 and the SSPX today: The priests at your parish before Vatican II were under the authority of their local bishop, who in turn answered to the Pope. Today, the whole Trad world is made up of individual lifeboats. The SSPX is just the Wal-mart of lifeboats, consolidating over 90% of the lifeboats into their own organization, putting all the other mom & pop lifeboats (independent chapels) out of business.

    And we all know what happens when a Wal-mart takes over and becomes a monopoly: the company's profit becomes king and 1st priority, they forbid any kind of employee unions, they force employees to work extra hours without pay, they pay as little as possible, etc. A monopoly is not a good thing, unless it's a God-appointed one, like the Catholic Church. But the SSPX is not the Church; it was not founded or appointed by God. It is a purely human organization, even though they happen to deal in sacred things. God never made a promise to +Lefebvre that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" or, "Behold I am with you all days".

    Once again Matthew you take my opinion and make it say things I never said in the context you place them. First of all I have no problem with Mass in a house or cave up a mountain. God knows if it were not for such Masses the Catholic faith may not have survived over the hundreds of years of suppression by the British begun by that Satanist Oliver Cromwell. Every year the SSPX priests go to one of these 'rocks' to say Mass and we travel with them.

    What I said was that for centuries Catholics have practiced their faith in churches, designed for and consecrated for that purpose. For centuries the flock remained united around their churches. I was reared in such an environment and naturally it is what I wanted for my Children and grandchildren. In a church one knows you are in God's house. especially the children who learn discipline while Mass is being said.

    Now given our church is as traditionally Catholic as any in the past, with all the sacramentals visible around its altar and walls, with never a hint of modernism from its priests, indeed quite the opposite, condemnation of all that is Modernist coming from Rome since Vatican II, with families and their children present every Sunday for example, why on Earth would one prefer to take one's family to the Resistance Mass said in a hotel room? How would you explain that to your children? That is the context of what I said, no more or no less..


    Offline Quid Retribuam Domino

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 119
    • Reputation: +64/-15
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #26 on: September 21, 2018, 01:02:34 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Although I haven't done it in a long time, I have a history of sneaking into a Novus Ordo chapel and writing "CathInfo.com" and another site (a sede site that doesn't have the favor of the moderator here, so I won't mention it) on their bulletin flyers and sign-in sheets. I even used sidewalk chalk to write it on sidewalks near the entrance and on outside walls or curbs near their softball field.

    Asymmetry. Employ it with your prayers, almsgiving, fasting and receiving the Sacraments.
    From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

    International Women's Day is a day we all celebrate Eve's rebellion at the Tree and our plummet into sin.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21899
    • Reputation: +19217/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #27 on: September 21, 2018, 01:18:59 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Although I haven't done it in a long time, I have a history of sneaking into a Novus Ordo chapel and writing "CathInfo.com" and another site (a sede site that doesn't have the favor of the moderator here, so I won't mention it) on their bulletin flyers and sign-in sheets. I even used sidewalk chalk to write it on sidewalks near the entrance and on outside walls or curbs near their softball field.

    Asymmetry. Employ it with your prayers, almsgiving, fasting and receiving the Sacraments.
    Cool!
    That is how we should be channeling the energy, fervor, etc. of our young people. If they are feeling frustrated or rebellious, have them do something like this! Note that sidewalk chalk is not destructive. But it helps spread the message -- who knows if that will be an avenue that will wake some people up and let them know they don't have to put up with the Novus Ordo anymore. There is a great alternative out there.

    It also strikes me as very masculine to get out there and take action like this.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15699
    • Reputation: +8288/-2603
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
    « Reply #28 on: September 21, 2018, 01:46:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It also strikes me as very masculine to get out there and take action like this.

    Hard to say.  Almost has a college-kid feel to it.  Now manly would be to stand up on a pew during the middle of a Novus Ordo service to denounce them all as heretics.  :laugh1:

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16