Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
General Discussion / Re: Introduce yourself!
« Last post by Meg on Today at 01:35:58 PM »
Dominic, I will share something I just learned, having been here just slightly longer than you. (But I have been working very hard to get the lay of the land, because I want to know if this is a benign place, or not. I am learning!)

You should know that you are not allowed to use the "like" and "dislike" buttons. Only regular (not newcomer) members can use those buttons. They are the (swarm of) judges, and you, the newcomer, are here to be judged. You heretic.  :heretic:

In my first good insider look here at SSPX and SSPX-related groups (I thought it was "Trad Cath" but now inside, I think unless I am in some ways related to SSPX I am in fact a disdained outsider to a chunk of folk here), I am beginning to get the idea that this is an insiders group that probably judges each other quite a bit.  Members of this group of elites, who are so much better than us, work to keep each other toeing the line. That certainly works to feel a bit like being constantly battered to many for these elitists, who must work tirelessly to adjust and align their life so they can avoid being judged for doing it wrong. This is all very tiring. But a newbie showing up here is a delightful opportunity to turn it around and enjoy being the smug batterer, rather than the battered!  That explains the "sharkbait" feeling I got right off.

If you aren't already an insider, then you just aren't good enough. And you being "ignorant you" means that you have nothing to offer. Just a lot to criticize (and dislike).

(There are nice folks here too, and I am thankful. I would like to know these like-minded, sincere Catholics better, but I am beginning to doubt I can handle exposing myself to the very real element of ugliness and unkindness, whatever size it is, that is deeply rooted and at home here. And I just cannot understand how exposure to such a beautiful Mass would not transform people to be more Christlike. How?)  

I hope that you stick around, Eliza. You seem to think that you already know it all (I'm like that too), but that approach isn't going to work well here. There's a lot you can learn here, if you decide to develop a thicker skin. The Catholic Faith isn't all about peace and love, as you have perhaps been led to believe.

Perhaps you should try to understand why you have downvotes. I know why I have a lot of them, but it's okay. I don't mind. 
new sound track @ 101:43

staring: Jason was a gentile

Dear democrats, just walk away
The Truth is your friend
You have been lied to
De-class won't be long
And you're going to need
Somebody to lean on.

Listen I was raised Democrat by a borderline feminist,
Who I love and I respect, still I walked away, yeah, yeah.

I was taught to be a liberal from a guy who was 20 living in the 70's
I bet it was hard for him, but I walked away, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

If you knew me, you would know that I'm a truth seeker;
If you knew me, you would know that I'm a nice guy.

If you knew me, you would know that I cried
when I learned about slavery for the first time.

If you knew me, you would know I'm searching for the facts,
and that is why I'm interested in De-Class.

In this moment in time, this is my life, and here is my wife.


Sometimes I get pumped when I talk about Trump.
Sometimes I wanna yell, but I restrain myself.

The reason for this is because of human trafficking, and
scum-bag dirt-bag A-holes like Epstein, dude!

You ain't never seen a rabbit hole this deep
Research the topic for like 5 minutes and your freak.

My fellow Americans, the situation's bleak
The only reason why you hear me's 'cause I choose to speak.

And the Democrats wanna take my speech away
I know they shadow ban my favorite twitter page.

So I decided I should educate them liberals too
Slinging that Redpill78 up in the booth.

Listen I was born in the blue state of New York
But the Democratic party won't get my support.

I prolly would have been a liberal until I died,
And then I opened up my eyes.


If you're tired of the race baiting,
If you see through the lies and deception,

If you know that socialism turns to communism
Walk away, walk away.

If you're tired of the race baiting,
If you see through the lies and deception,

If you know that socialism turns to communism
Walk away, walk away.

General Discussion / Re: Introducing myself
« Last post by Meg on Today at 01:30:13 PM »
"Meeting someone where they are" can mean a lot of different things. I'd ask for clarification if unsure.

I mean Paul IN ONE SENSE did so with the Athenians.

Francis is bad because he strains Pelagian and acts like "good people go to heaven"

I agree that it can mean different things, but to Pope Francis, and often with Novus Ordo Catholics, it often means that we accept and are okay with whatever "lifestyle" they are attuned to, and we overlook any problems such as co-habitation, homosexuality, etc, in hopes that maybe someday, they will be okay with what the Church actually teaches and insists on (or used to insist on).

Pope Francis is very much into the "meeting someone where they are," which coincides with "accompaniment." The problem with that view is that there is not a clear teaching given to those whom are "met where they are," because it might, for example, cause them to turn away from conversion. But that's a BIG problem, because they absolutely need to know what proper Church teaching is, even if there's a chance that they might reject it and not convert. It may be inconvenient to live as Our Lord expects us to, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Some of the Apostles themselves were not happy when Our Lord said that divorce and remarriage is not allowed. But that did not stop Our Lord from proclaiming the truth.
General Discussion / Re: Movie: “Garabandal: Only God Knows”
« Last post by frignatius on Today at 01:26:13 PM »
Obviously the reported overhearing of the children asking the Blessed Virgin about the council, and of the overhearing of the responding along the lines of "o good the council will speak well of you" and "so through the council and the miracle the world will be converted" is problematic.


1) we don't actually know what Our Blessed mother said to the kids. It may be our Lady was referring to a later council....

2) It may be that the children are caught up in the collective enthusiasm for their council and are applying their enthusiasm on Our Lady's words 

3) It may be that the point Our Lady was speaking was prior to the complete hijacking of the council by the new documents etc etc, the re writing of the apparently orthodox original documents and their replacement by modernism.

4) it may be that the report is incorrect, these so called sayings that the children apparently said are not very athoritative in the whole garabandal scheme.
That looks very fishy.
You can verify the fidelity of the transcription by consulting the original (1848 ) translation of Waterworth's:
As you can see, "(faith)" is included in the original.
Hold on there. I know some theologians teach that - maybe even St. Thomas - but it contradicts Romans, Galatians, Hebrews (regarding the old sacrifices which didn't justify from sin), and the Magisterium of the Church. I'll find the quote from Denzinger, but I'm pretty sure that one of the popes quoted in there said circumcision didn't justify.


Quote from: Trent, Cum Hoc Tempore, 6th session

 On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.
What in blazes are you talking about?  Those of the Old Testament who went to the Limbo of the Just were justified by the Jewish Faith!  They were justified by the rite of circumcision and by the sacrifices of the old law, which were still in effect until Pentacost.
.You have no idea what you're talking about.  You can't use a Church council's explanation of the New Testament laws to understand the Old Law.
.Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and all the prophets, etc, etc were "under the power of the devil"?  You're nuttier than squirrel turds.
Hold on there. I know some theologians teach that - maybe even St. Thomas - but it contradicts Romans, Galatians, Hebrews (regarding the old sacrifices which didn't justify from sin), and the Magisterium of the Church. I'll find the quote from Denzinger, but I'm pretty sure that one of the popes quoted in there said circumcision didn't justify. 
General Discussion / Re: On Squirrels
« Last post by 2Vermont on Today at 12:52:53 PM »
Thanks for your thoughts Matto.  This was very strange indeed.  As much as I don't want to look into it for further meaning, it is really hard not to do so.  This has never happened before.
Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Pressuring kids to say dialogue mass
« Last post by Anonymous on Today at 12:39:32 PM »
This is what you wrote in the OP:  Did you ever find out about the first teacher who took your child into the hallway?  Did this really happen?  If not, then it sounds like your child may have made a blatant lie.  If not, I still wonder whether the truth lies somewhere between what your kids said and what the school is saying.

One teacher removed my child from class to speak with him in the hallway about how good and important it is to make the responses, and another teacher told my other child’s class that whoever made the responses would receive two marbles (my child perceived that this was in response to this teachers’ having discovered that he was not making the responses).
Well, later that story changed from one teacher taking one of my sons out into the hall, to another teacher taking my other son out into the hall.  Then later after continuing my questioning, it turned into “maybe the teacher took me into the hall about something else.” 
But here is another weird aspect I am trying to figure out:
Apparently, my spouse and mother, unbeknownst to me, were saying a Novena to help decide whether the kids should go to the school.  The kids told us this info on day 7 of the Novena, and we immediately made the decision (my spouse later informing me of the Novena, which sealed the deal for me).  Day 9 was the school registration deadline, and because of the curious timing of the “revelations” from our children, the Novena in play, and the “coincidence” of the Novena ending on the registration deadline (combined with the fact that my spouse was suddenly willing to homeschool because of the whole episode, which was not at all their position before this all happened), we thought heaven had answered my spouses prayers, and were at peace with it all.
Now, learning after the fact that it is extremely unlikely our children accurately recounted the matter to us, I am wondering whether heaven had spoken after all.
Could/would Our Lady use mistakes or lies to get us to come to this decision?  That seems blasphemous.  On the other hand, could heaven make good (ie., the decision) come from evil?  I think that answer is yes.
Meanwhile, there are other major things happening in our life, which I will not go into, but I have perceived/wondered/felt that something I am about to do has aroused either the anger of heaven or hell (the latter, I think/Hope), and that this incident is a consequence of my future action, though I could be wrong about that:
Did the devil trick us into making this decision, or did heaven respond, or neither?
All I can say is that I have been relieved I will not have to worry about the kids at the school, and had a great feeling of peace after making the decision, even though this subsequent revelation of inaccuracies somewhat muddies those waters.
I wanted them out anyway, so maybe the peace was purely natural, and not the inspiration of the good angel (or, maybe it is the disturbance of soul caused by the devil who wants me to second guess myself which has muddied the waters).  Both possibilities are discussed in the discernment of spirits.
In any case, the rules also say never to make a decision in a state of turmoil.
Consequently, we will, for now, live with the decision and carry on.
Loughlin, J. (1907). Anacletus II, The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Quote from: St. Bernard's letter to Bishops of Aquitaine (Op. cxxvi)
The life and character of our Pope Innocent [II] are above any attack, even of his rival; while the other's are not safe even from his friends. In the second place, if you compare the elections, that of our candidate at once has the advantage over the other as being purer in motive, more regular in form, and earlier in time. The last point is out of all doubt; the other two are proved by the merit and the dignity of the electors. You will find, if I mistake not, that this election was made by the more discreet part of those to whom the election of the Supreme Pontiff belongs. There were cardinals, bishops, priests, and deacons, in sufficient number, according to the decrees of the Fathers, to make a valid election. The consecration was performed by the Bishop of Ostia, to whom that function specially belongs.

cf. Antipope Anacletus II vs. Pope Innocent II
felix festum S. Bernardi Abbatis et Ecclesiæ Doctoris!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10