Author Topic: Suscipe Domine (Read 14596 times)

tmw89 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 03, 2015, 07:22:45 PM »

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant

That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.

"faithandvigilance"??

At any rate, even if we completely ignore your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, suggesting that Pope St. Pius X made changes harmful to the Church is at bare minimum seriously erroneous as it seems to fall under the condemned proposition that the Church can give us something harmful to the Faith.

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant

Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.

There are some posters I really like, and then there is the best poster in the entire online Trad community: Ken Gordon on Bellarmine. Have you ever read his posts? He hasn't posted in at least months and the Bellarmine Forums have shuttered again, but those posts are great.

TheKnightVigilant · « **Reply #16 on:** March 03, 2015, 07:23:37 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.

Wow, that is something. I will look for his posts since you rate him so highly. Did he post on any other forums than SD?

I think he may have posted on Ignis Ardens back in the day, but I know him from his SD posts.

Matto · « **Reply #17 on:** March 03, 2015, 07:24:52 PM »

No, you are wrong. Everyone knows that Matto is the greatest poster in the online traditional Catholic world. LOL.

TheKnightVigilant · « **Reply #18 on:** March 03, 2015, 07:30:07 PM »

Quote from: Sbyvl

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Quote from: Matto
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.

That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.

They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.

Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.

You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.

What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?

Matto · « **Reply #19 on:** March 03, 2015, 07:31:03 PM »

Quote from: Sbyvl

Quote from: Matto
No, you are wrong. Everyone knows that Matto is the greatest poster in the online traditional Catholic world. LOL.

What did you think of Te Deum, Matto?

I haven't seen enough to comment about it yet except that I noticed that it is pretty new so there are not many members yet. But I think I will add it to my favorites and check up on it now and again.

tmw89 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 03, 2015, 07:31:12 PM »

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant

Quote from: Sbyvl
Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Quote from: Matto
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.

That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.

They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.

Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.

You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.

What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?

You got answers you didn't like, so you claim you got no answers? :confused1:

Sbyvl · « **Reply #21 on:** March 03, 2015, 07:33:17 PM »

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant

Quote from: Sbyvl
Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Quote from: Matto
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.

That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.

They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.

Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.

You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.

What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?

It is impossible for the entire Church to be in error. The entire Church followed Vatican I. Ergo.

Moreover, I believe several members did refute what you said. But the crux of the matter was that you were publicly doubting an infallible doctrine of the faith. That is unacceptable. There is enough heresy and error in the world, and we don't need any of it on a Catholic forum.

And by the way, I didn't ban discussion of the prudence of Vatican I, but rather it's legitimacy, so most of your posts in this thread were devoted to proving a moot point.

poche · « **Reply #22 on:** March 03, 2015, 10:46:34 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I am investigating SD to see if I want to post there. I found this which is not promising:

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=1181.90

Archer said:
"Petrie has been banned for one day for calling Pope Francis an enemy of God. "

I can't believe this is not allowed. If Francis is not an enemy of God then God has no enemies.

Matthew has this to say about the Pope; "Christ founded a visible Church with a priesthood, with a hierarchy and Pope at the head."

poche · « **Reply #23 on:** March 03, 2015, 10:57:00 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.

Saint Pius X made destructive changes to the liturgy? What were these? I remember that he changed the breviary. Is that what you mean? Or did he make other changes (like Pius XII changing the holy week) that I am unaware of?

Pius X started the liturgical reform. He promoted frequent (even daily) reception of Holy Communion. He issued a reform that allowed children to make their forst Holy Communion at teh age of reason (7 years) rather than at the age of discretion (around 13) He also promoted the use of Gregorian chant. I personally do not think of Pius X's changes as destructive.

poche · « **Reply #24 on:** March 03, 2015, 11:02:13 PM »

Quote from: Sbyvl

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Quote from: Sbyvl
Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Quote from: Matto
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.

That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.

They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.

Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.

You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.

What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?

It is impossible for the entire Church to be in error. The entire Church followed Vatican I. Ergo.

Moreover, I believe several members did refute what you said. But the crux of the matter was that you were publicly doubting an infallible doctrine of the faith. That is unacceptable. There is enough heresy and error in the world, and we don't need any of it on a Catholic forum.

And by the way, I didn't ban discussion of the prudence of Vatican I, but rather it's legitimacy, so most of your posts in this thread were devoted to proving a moot point.

You are mistaken. the entire Church didn't follow Vatican I. There was a schism that followed. Today there are communities of "Old Catholics" who date themselves from this schism.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #25 on:** March 03, 2015, 11:14:55 PM »

tmw89 wrote:

Quote

But really, stating "If you attempt to justify male domination (as opposed to authentic leadership and stewardship) by using your personal, unsubstantiated interpretation of Catholic sources, you’re wrong" is just another way to dispatch any proof of the male sex's superiority in any matter of authority,

and there it is. You identified the crux of that tiresome not-so-well disguised justification. There are none so blind... etc.

Quote

What makes a forum good or bad? To answer that question, we might ask two more of each one: Is it faithful to Catholic Tradition? And does it recognize as enemies of the Church those nations and followers of ideology already identified by the Church as Her enemies, treating them accordingly?

I think if a forum can answer "yes" to both, there shouldn't be problems.

Very succinct.
In the "good forums" column, I notice the administrators/moderators permit strong personalities to have robust debate, and are quick to rein in error tout de suite - the very reason I avoid the "bad forums" list, those who permit insult to Our Lord via permitting error.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #26 on:** March 03, 2015, 11:21:24 PM »

Matto, go to whatever forum you're interested in knowing about and you'll probably find there a person or two or dozen whom you know from other forums. If you trust their opinion, ask them what they think. All you'll do by asking here is draw out all of the moderators of these forums to defend their respective turfs as well as members who've been banned and wish to state how unjust their banning was. Basically, everyone with an agenda will post* whereas I'm sure you can pick out a person or two with no agenda and ask them personally.

*That is not to say that everyone who has answered has an agenda, only that it might be difficult to know who does and who does not.

Sbyvl · « **Reply #27 on:** March 04, 2015, 04:21:20 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Sbyvl
Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Quote from: Sbyvl
Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Quote from: Matto
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.

That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.

They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.

Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.

You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.

What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?

It is impossible for the entire Church to be in error. The entire Church followed Vatican I. Ergo.

Moreover, I believe several members did refute what you said. But the crux of the matter was that you were publicly doubting an infallible doctrine of the faith. That is unacceptable. There is enough heresy and error in the world, and we don't need any of it on a Catholic forum.

And by the way, I didn't ban discussion of the prudence of Vatican I, but rather it's legitimacy, so most of your posts in this thread were devoted to proving a moot point.

You are mistaken. the entire Church didn't follow Vatican I. There was a schism that followed. Today there are communities of "Old Catholics" who date themselves from this schism.

The Old Catholics defected to the Anglicans in 1932. So if they were right, the Catholic Church is in communion with a false sect, which is clearly impossible.

poche · « **Reply #28 on:** March 04, 2015, 04:43:08 AM »

Quote from: Sbyvl

Quote from: poche
Quote from: Sbyvl
Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Quote from: Sbyvl
Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Quote from: Matto
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.

That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.

They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.

Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.

You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.

What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?

It is impossible for the entire Church to be in error. The entire Church followed Vatican I. Ergo.

Moreover, I believe several members did refute what you said. But the crux of the matter was that you were publicly doubting an infallible doctrine of the faith. That is unacceptable. There is enough heresy and error in the world, and we don't need any of it on a Catholic forum.

And by the way, I didn't ban discussion of the prudence of Vatican I, but rather it's legitimacy, so most of your posts in this thread were devoted to proving a moot point.

You are mistaken. the entire Church didn't follow Vatican I. There was a schism that followed. Today there are communities of "Old Catholics" who date themselves from this schism.

The Old Catholics defected to the Anglicans in 1932. So if they were right, the Catholic Church is in communion with a false sect, which is clearly impossible.

Yes but their departure was after Vatican I. Their sacraments have been recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. That will all change now that they "ordain" women to the priesthood.

Sbyvl · « **Reply #29 on:** March 04, 2015, 05:37:19 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Sbyvl
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Sbyvl
Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Quote from: Sbyvl
Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Quote from: Matto
Wow. I just learned there is another rival trad forum called Te Deum. I will check that one out too. I am behind the times.

That forum is no better. It's just where Suscipe Domine's ultramontanists go to nod heads and agree with each other. They permanently banned me for saying that St. Pius X made some destructive changes to the liturgy and that ultramontanism has harmed the Church - two facts that cannot be reasonably denied with the hindsight of Vatican II.

They complain about SD's banning of Maximilian, but here's the thing: They would have banned Maximilian too, because he shares the same view of ultramontanism that got me banned from their forum, and he isn't shy about it. Infact he rejects papal infallibility outright as a novelty.

Unrelated really, but Maximilian is the best poster in the entire online trad community.

You were banned for publicly doubting the dogma of Papal infallibility. There is no place for heresy on a Catholic forum. You were given a chance to stop spreading heresy, but you refused. We've only banned a handful of individuals over the past six months, almost all of them on account of the individuals' obstinate heresy.

What I did was raise questions about how Vatican I can be squared with what happened at Vatican II, and whether or not it is consistent with how the Church was governed for almost 1900 years - questions that neither you nor any other members of your forum were able to answer. I was banned for doing with Vatican I exactly what you do with Vatican II. Why the inconsistency? Why the double-standard?

It is impossible for the entire Church to be in error. The entire Church followed Vatican I. Ergo.

Moreover, I believe several members did refute what you said. But the crux of the matter was that you were publicly doubting an infallible doctrine of the faith. That is unacceptable. There is enough heresy and error in the world, and we don't need any of it on a Catholic forum.

And by the way, I didn't ban discussion of the prudence of Vatican I, but rather it's legitimacy, so most of your posts in this thread were devoted to proving a moot point.

You are mistaken. the entire Church didn't follow Vatican I. There was a schism that followed. Today there are communities of "Old Catholics" who date themselves from this schism.

The Old Catholics defected to the Anglicans in 1932. So if they were right, the Catholic Church is in communion with a false sect, which is clearly impossible.

Yes but their departure was after Vatican I. Their sacraments have been recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. That will all change now that they "ordain" women to the priesthood.

Since you accept their defection, where has the Catholic Church been since 1932? Which bishops have ordinary jurisdiction? Which have supplied jurisdiction?