Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Fighting Errors in the Modern World / Re: A New Crusade
« Last post by Student of Qi on Today at 12:11:53 AM »
I up voted your post, Anon. But, you seem to lack that "quality" men tend to have that makes them dream of heroic deeds and vicious wars but still living through it. Of course, one can object we are already doing this on a more spiretual level, and that the heroism is in the blessed monotony of our principals... after all, the simplest things are the hardest to accomplish.

In any case, as I stated above, this organisation is not going to simply disappear. Young men especially have a lust for violence (at least as far as I know them, including myself) because it is immortalised and made so romantic in our history books and folk tales. If they can't join and fight they will give monetary means to support the fight! Even if this is indeed fraud, it will be supported because it allows people to dream... for better or worse.
2
But what about widowed women, then? Do we let them die in poverty?
3
Catholics in general are not what they should be

I know, Big Newsflash of the Century!

And they do not all know the Bible so a lot of Evangelicals and others can do the "gotcha" and feel superior

Well, I have read the entire Bible.. and of course we Catholics hear the Word read to us every day if we go to daily Mass, which means we have vritually heard the whole Bible after only 3 yrs. I have been trying to go to daily Mass every day for many yrs.. The devil hates tht and lately things have not been so good... but anyhow...

Yeh, and besides that, you can barely distinguish most Catholics from Protestants or even non-believers (worldlings)

So yeh... I can see why there is a problem
Well I will admit I don't nearly have enough hours logged on my biblical studies but that's hardly the problem with Catholics today. Most anti Catholic arguments are born from simple ignorance, the argument structured like a facebook meme, and the actual content about as accurate as a broken compass. Catholics problem today is they do not love their faith more than they love their comforts. They are lazy and can't be bothered to learn their own fricking history, let alone the actual theology of their "belief". Anti Catholic sentiments come from willingly stupid ignorance and the Catholic Church being a mess as everyones favorite fallen angel prefers.
4
Fighting Errors in the Modern World / Re: A New Crusade
« Last post by AnonymousCatholic on Yesterday at 11:40:21 PM »


Honestly this seems like a great way to end up on an FBI watch list and perhaps waste your money and that's about it. To start lets take a step back and assess what a tremendous failure the original crusades were and back then the Crusaders had entire nations backing them and the authority of the papacy, they also had the Byzantine Empire to at least allow them to arrive safely. If this proposed Crusade takes place how will they arrive? I sincerely doubt any nation with an airport functioning is just going to allow you to land an army in their back yard. Couple that with none of these men knowing the region and are entirely unknown to the locals. Not to mention that foreign intervention has always since the dawn of time made the Middle East worse. If you honestly care about Christians in the Middle East you're better off flying into Egypt and try tracking down one of the already existing militia groups. 


The bottom line is this, a crusade involves a flood of foreigners into lands they do not know, to protect people that do not know them for a cause no one is sure of. Not to mention such an influx is likely to piss off local nations and the people. On top of these we live in a secular world and absolutely no secular power is going to allow you to get anything done. 

I hope this is nothing more than a feverish dream because any organized foreign Catholic Crusade is going to accomplish nothing but widowed wives and fatherless children. Your efforts would be better spent preaching at home and trying to revive the shadow that was Catholicism instead of going halfway across the world to wage an ill conceived campaign.


5
Quote
In the 1960s, a bank could refuse to issue a credit card to an unmarried woman; even if she was married, her husband was required to cosign. As recently as the 1970s, credit cards in many cases were issued with only a husband's signature. It was not until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 that it became illegal to refuse a credit card to a woman based on her gender.
source

This Equal Credit Opportunity Act, passed a year after Roe v. Wade, is quite sickening because it has a two-fold effect: destroying the relationship between husbands and wives and enslaving more people to usurious loans.
6
Fighting Errors in the Modern World / Re: A New Crusade
« Last post by LaramieHirsch on Yesterday at 09:46:59 PM »
Thank you Laramie!
I was having trouble typing into the whitespace on Cathinfo last night for whatever reason, so I could only copy and paste without an explanation.  

That comment came from one of the three videos--off of Youtube.  

So, who am I to believe.  This supposed friar?  Or a random charge in a comment box?  

I'm definitely investigating this.  If it's real, I am wanting to promote it.  I've tried calling the number, but there has been no answer thus far. 
 
If this guy were serious, you think he would try to make himself more accessible.  Regular Youtube videos discussing the importance of his initiative, an e-mail address you could write to if you had questions, or a Facebook page.  But no.  This guy is somewhat inaccessible and difficult to pin down.  Smells like a fraud.  Especially when I consider, how in his talks, he discusses how the organization could be funded in part through buying stocks of his organization.  

I'm afraid it's turning out to be a dud.  The idea is noble.  But this guy is putting a bad name on such an idea.  I'm going to continue to try to contact this friar.  I will put these accusations to him to see what he has to say to them.  
7
The closest I have found to this is in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum §20:
Quote
the worker [should not]…be…led away to neglect his home and family
Of course regarding wives (ibid. §42):
Quote
Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work
Perhaps earlier encyclicals, such as before or during the industrial revolution, address my question.

The Three Marks of Manhood (ch. 7) says:
Quote
Familial poverty…recognizes the desirability of subsistence food production, cottage industries and even, if possible, a father’s working from or in close proximity to home.
I'm wondering if this statement can be backed up by encyclicals.
8
Health and Nutrition / Re: Any vegans here?
« Last post by TKGS on Yesterday at 08:45:46 PM »
A Catholic would have serious issues with such a practice or agenda.

WHY are you abstaining from any product that comes from animals? Because they "animals are people too"? Because monkeys evolved into man, and so for all we know dolphins and other animals might be intelligent life? Because God didn't give animals to us for our use? Because only cavemen (like the Patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, saints, etc.) would be so primitive as to eat meat? Because there isn't a God in the first place? Because God doesn't know what's good for our health?

Think about it.

Also, whatever health benefits vegetarianism provides, there is NO health benefit to not using "animal products" like leather. The only reason to abstain from leather is due to pagan, new-age, or other non-Catholic beliefs.

Let's put it this way: abstaining from all animals (and animal products) in a vegan manner suggests that "God made a mistake" -- a blasphemy that any Catholic should hold in horror.
This.  Put much better than I could.
9
Health and Nutrition / Re: Any vegans here?
« Last post by TKGS on Yesterday at 08:41:06 PM »
No.  "Vegan" and "vegetarian" have two clearly different meanings, neither of which includes anything political.

"Vegetarian" means someone who doesn't eat flesh from animals.

"Vegan" means someone who doesn't eat any animal products, including things like milk and eggs.

These are dictionary definitions.  If you "disagree" with them, I have to wonder why.
ok.  whatever.  You can be a vegan.  Go ahead and ignore reality and go with what your dictionaries tell you.
10
Health and Nutrition / Re: Any vegans here?
« Last post by Peter15and1 on Yesterday at 08:34:36 PM »
It seems that others have already done so.

What you seem to want "vegan" to mean already has a word in English, "vegetarian".  Why use the term, "vegan", if not to connote something different?  The rest of society does indeed use it for an unholy idea.  If you still simply "disagree" after reading what has been posted, I have to wonder why.
No.  "Vegan" and "vegetarian" have two clearly different meanings, neither of which includes anything political.

"Vegetarian" means someone who doesn't eat flesh from animals.

"Vegan" means someone who doesn't eat any animal products, including things like milk and eggs.

These are dictionary definitions.  If you "disagree" with them, I have to wonder why.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by SMFPacks WYSIWYG Editor