Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 20
31
Catholic Living in the Modern World / Re: School with Nuns?
« Last post by MaterDominici on Yesterday at 03:55:48 PM »
Wondering how many options there are here in the US of a school run by nuns.

Traditional Catholic, of course.
I don't see any actual answers.

I'm pretty sure the SSPX have some teaching sisters, maybe in Idaho. I think there's a CMRI school in the Northwest with nuns. These nuns are in Florida https://www.qasonline.org/ and I think have a second location in Arizona.
32
Catholic Living in the Modern World / Re: School with Nuns?
« Last post by TomGubbinsKimmage on Yesterday at 03:12:53 PM »
Agree about the homeschooling. We also home school . I have a degree in an arts subject but am able to research the science and mathematics side. Up to a certain level anyway! The amount of people who say ‘so how do you teach MATHS?’ As if only a maths teacher can do this.
I actually think you’re right that some women with degrees can feel marrying a man without one is not possible… as if they’re somehow beneath them. But most sensible women wouldn’t be like this… in UK (I don’t know about USA and I think you’re there because you write math not maths haha) but in UK plumbers and builders can earn a shed load of money and are v intelligent especially if they own their own business. I have a friend who is a property developer, no degree-he was trying to explain to me about what he does, he has no degree but has learned as much on the job as he would in a lecture hall. I still think that an academic woman can go to university even in the current state of the education system. It very much depends on the university, her personality, if she lives at home or with Catholic friends or not, if shes strong in her faith etc etc….


I know a lot of sensible women.Yet I do not know a single one, I repeat, a single one who had a university degree and did not marry someone without one.

Stats bear that up too.

Marriage rates are plummeting anyway, so if I were a woman aged 18, the wisest thing I would do from a sheer practical point of view would be to not go to university. To best ensure my chances of finding someone. Far more men will marry down then women will marry down.

33
Politics and World Leaders / Re: GUN POLITICS
« Last post by Mark 79 on Yesterday at 02:50:55 PM »
Full auto seems like a good way to waste ammo in most cases. Some sort of specialized shot shell might be a better compromise.

I wish there was a high pressure (~20,000psi) .410 magnum 3.5" shells with a wide variety of loads.
In large degree, yes.  

Belt-feds are another matter. Unlike slow-to-reload shotguns and unlike mad-fed full autos, which are useful in "room clearing" and other CQB, belt-feds can sustain fire.

My popcorn is getting cold while waiting for Antifa and BLM to face belt-feds the sustained resistance that they have long deserved. :popcorn:
34
SSPX Resistance News / Boru=liar, hypocrite, subversive
« Last post by Mark 79 on Yesterday at 02:34:29 PM »
Ok, let us sum up exactly what you believe:

* You have NO regard for Canon Law. None.…
You are a damned hypocrite, liar, subversive, and illogical.

Quote
You really are a ninny.  You see ONE word and pounce without rhyme or reason. Christ was Hebrew. Old Testament was Hebrew. The Joos of today have no connection - neither religiously nor ethnically - to the Hebrews pre-Christ.…

Really??? I found fault with only "ONE" word? I clearly docuмented EIGHT fundamental flaws in your claims.

FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #1

Quote
Part Two:

"Yes, the Ordinary Magisterium is part of the deposit of faith, as it includes teachings that the Church proposes for belief based on Scripture and Tradition." AI answer.

Anything that contradicts Extraordinary Magisterium cannot be "Ordinary Magisterium." The simple fact that there are conflicting commentaries from non-Magisterial sources means BOD cannot be "what has always, everywhere, and unanimously taught," hence BOD cannot be "Ordinary Magisterium."

FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #2

Quote
The infallibility of both Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium was solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council (1870) when it stated the following:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in Solemn judgement OR in its Ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

Contradiction of Extraordinary Magisterium is neither "tradition" nor Extraordinary Magisterium.

FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #3

Quote
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states the same: "Three Organs of Infallibility: 1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See (exercised by what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church), 2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and 3. the pope himself separately.

Contradiction of Extraordinary Magisterium is neither "in union with the Holy See," "teaching authority of the Church," "tradition" nor Extraordinary Magisterium.

FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #4
Quote
In other words, both forms of the Magisterium of the Church (Solemn or Ordinary) are to be treated as infallible and must be believed, according to this General Council. So if a teaching in the Church is universal, and allowed to propagate without condemnation from the Solemn Magisterium, it is considered infallible by the First Vatican Council.
The Extraordinary Magisterium taught the Truth that "water and the spirit are necessary for Salvation. It is not necessary for the Church to condemn the entire universe of errors.

"In other words"? Those "other" words are your words: illogical, self-serving, and without any authority.

FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #5
Quote
The Solemn Magisterium:

The Council of Trent: Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

In English and Latin, "or" and "aut" may be used inclusively as "or without the desire of them" must be used in this instance, since otherwise it would contradict other Extraordinary Magisterium. Extraordinary magisterium can refine earlier teaching, but it cannot "refine" a dogma into its exact opposite. It is impossible for The Council to turn a dogma that "water and the spirit" are necessary for Salvation into "Well… you don't really need water anymore."

FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #6
Quote
The Council of Trent: Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: …
In this thread the differences between justification and salvation have been explained to you repeatedly. Instead of just repeating your error, you should re-read and submit to the difference.

FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #7
Quote
In Hebrew thought, …
"In Hebrew thought…". So much for Catholic dogma, eh?

After you were called on this, you first lied that there was “no rhyme or reason” to challenge you about invoking “Hebrew thought” in a discussion about Catholic dogma— only later to claim the opposite.

Belatedly you claimed there actually was a reason to discuss “Hebrew thought”:

Boru, a verbatim quote:
Quote
Quote“This use of the word Hebrew was used in order to show that the word 'righteousness' has always been, even in the OLD TESTAMENT, to mean 'holiness',”
That is another lie.*

Not only is there no Catholic use of “Hebrew” to convey “righteousness,”* the Jews use the Hebrew word for “righteous”
( צַדִיק transliterated variously as ’zaddik’ or 'tsedeq') as a name for their revered тαℓмυdic rabbis—as in the Koliner rabbi’s claim [referenced in my previous posts] that “A Zaddik decrees and God obeys.”

• See the end of this post regarding my Grok inquiry on that point.

I am sure that this irony is lost on you.

In dissembling to vindicate your invocation of “Hebrew thought,” you have actually dug yourself deeper into the pit of hell.
You sought solace in “Hebrew thought” which actually claims the Zaddik, the rabbis, have authority over God Himself and who have the authority to alter Scripture.**

You reject the Word of God (John 3:5) and you reject the Extraordinary Magisterium of His Church. You emulate the damned rabbis in such usurpation and rejection and you invoke “Hebrew thought” as part of your ineffectual defense. Oh, the irony!

No amount of verbosity or word salad slithering allows you to escape your mirroring “Hebrew thought” in rejecting the Truth and substituting instead a bunch of man-made bullshit. You emulate the worst of "Hebrew thought."

You lie on the spot to make up any bullshit that is convenient at the moment to promote your errors.


**
Quote
QuoteThe Koliner rebbe [17th century rabbi of Prague] stated, “Our Zaddikim’s (famous Orthodox rabbis) words are more important than the Torah of Moses As our Sages teach: A Zaddik decrees, and God obeys.”

“God smiled and said: ‘My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me!’ God’s sons ‘defeated him’ with their arguments. Rabbi Yehoshua was correct in his contention that a view confirmed by majority vote must be accepted, even where God Himself holds the opposite view.”
Babylonian тαℓмυd, Tractate Bava Metzia 59b, Steinsaltz Edition [NY: Random House 1990], Vol. III p.237

“... The rabbi constituted the projection of the divine on earth. Honor was due him more than to the scroll of the Torah, for through his learning and logic he might alter the very content of Mosaic revelation. He was Torah, not merely because he lived by it, but because at his best he constituted as compelling an embodiment of the heavenly model as did a Torah scroll itself.”
Rabbi Jacob Neusner, “The Phenomenon of the Rabbi in Late Antiquity: II The Ritual of ‘Being a Rabbi’ in Later Sasanian Babylonia,” Numen, Vol.17, Fasc. 1., Feb., 1970, pp.3-4

* Now for Boru's lie that the word "Hebrew" is "always" understood as "righteousness," I asked Grok:

Is there any sense in which Catholic theology considers the word "Hebrew" as a synonym, metaphor, or simile for the word "righteousness"?

Grok answers:


Quote
No, there is no evidence in Catholic theology that the word "Hebrew" is considered a synonym, metaphor, or simile for "righteousness."

The term "Hebrew" (from the Hebrew "Ivri") is typically interpreted in Catholic sources, such as the writings of St. Jerome and other Church Fathers, as an ethnic designation derived from Abraham's ancestor Eber (Genesis 10:21, 11:14-17) or as meaning "one who crosses over" or "passer-by" (from the root 'abar, referring to Abraham's migration across the Euphrates River from Ur to Canaan). This "crossing over" is sometimes symbolically linked to Abraham's faith journey away from idolatry toward God, as seen in patristic commentaries on Genesis 14:13. Abraham himself is a model of righteousness by faith in Catholic teaching (e.g., Romans 4, cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 144-147), but the word "Hebrew" itself is not used as a direct stand-in for "righteousness."

The Hebrew word for "righteousness" is instead "tsedeq" or "tzedakah," which denotes justice, moral uprightness, or covenant fidelity, and is unrelated etymologically or theologically to "Hebrew" in Catholic tradition. Any symbolic connection between Abraham's "Hebrew" identity and righteousness stems from Jєωιѕн midrashic interpretations (e.g., Abraham standing alone against the world for God), which Catholic theology may acknowledge in broader biblical exegesis but does not adopt as a direct equivalence for the term.

My follow-up question to Grok:

Is  צַדִיק , transliterated variously as ’zaddik’ or 'tsedeq', also a term of reverence used by тαℓмυdic Jews to refer to "sages" and respected rabbis?


Grok answers:


Quote
Yes, the Hebrew term **צַדִּיק** (transliterated as *tzaddik* or *tsaddik*) is used in Jєωιѕн tradition, including тαℓмυdic literature, as a term of reverence to refer to exceptionally righteous individuals, sages, or respected rabbis. The word derives from the root **צ-ד-ק** (*ts-d-q*), meaning "righteousness" or "justice," and denotes someone who embodies moral and spiritual uprightness.

In тαℓмυdic and later Jєωιѕн tradition, a *tzaddik* is not merely a "righteous person" in a general sense but often carries a specific connotation of holiness, wisdom, and closeness to God. The term is applied to figures such as revered rabbis, sages, or spiritual leaders who exemplify piety and adherence to Torah. For example:
- In the тαℓмυd, figures like Rabbi Akiva or Hillel are implicitly regarded as *tzaddikim* due to their exemplary lives and teachings, though the term is not always explicitly applied to every sage.
- In later Jєωιѕн mysticism, particularly in Hasidism, the *tzaddik* became a central figure, often referring to a rebbe (spiritual leader) believed to have a unique connection to God, capable of interceding for their followers. The Hasidic concept of the *tzaddik* builds on earlier тαℓмυdic reverence but elevates it with mystical significance.

The related term **צְדָקָה** (*tzedakah*), also from the same root, refers to acts of charity or righteousness but is distinct from *tzaddik*, which describes a person. In Catholic theology, as noted previously, *tzaddik* or *tsedeq* is understood as "righteousness" in biblical contexts (e.g., in the Hebrew Scriptures), but the specific Jєωιѕн usage as a title for revered sages or rabbis is not paralleled in Catholic tradition, which has its own categories like "saint" or "doctor of the Church" for venerated figures.

and illogic used to deceive and subvert:

…a fraction of Boru's pervasive illogic and self-contradictions.

• While claiming to assent to God's Word at John 3:5 that "water and the spirit" are necessary for Salvation, Boru piles post upon post on page after page to insist that water is not necessary. What rational person embraces God's Word by contradicting His Word??? Boru's self-deception is astounding.

It is тαℓмυdic pilpul, "Hebrew thought." More Boru hypocrisy

While "self-identifying" as a traditional Catholic and insisting that others adhere to Catholic authoity, Boru completely inverts the Magisterium's traditional hierarchy of doctrinal authority.

• Using pull quotes from non-Magisterial docuмents to nullify both the Word of God and the Councils of Florence and Trent is quintessentially Modernist and Motarian, not "traditional" at all.

• Boru refuses to accept the grammar of the English and Latin languages. "Or" may be used "inclusively" in both languages.

Boru corrupts logic.
(1) "A + B are necessary" ["Water and the Spirit are necessary for Baptism"]
but
(2) "B is necessary" [any number of pull quotes explaining the necessity of the Spirit]
therefore
(3) "A is no longer necessary."???!!!  [Water Baptism is unnecessary] ???!!! Astonishing illogic.

• Another example of Boru's illogic. Even in Boru's own example of the conversion of Cornelius's household is tortured by illogic and dyslexia. Boru correctly extolls the evidence of God's Spirit before Baptism, but ignores the simple fact that St. Peter, the Pope, plainly indicates that no man can "forbid water" and "commanded them to be baptized," a water Baptism. Acts 10:46-47:

"46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God.  47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?  48 And he [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days."

Even despite the acknowledged outpouring of Graces, Peter did not "forbid water" and still "commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."  It is beyond any sound logic that Boru offers this passage as denying the need for water Baptism. Peter ordered Water Baptism!

• Boru indulges sentimentality to reject God's Word and Extraordinary Magisterium. In doing that, Boru implicitly believes that God's Providence cannot provide the circuмstance necessary (form matter minister intent) to save those "predestinated" for Salvation (Ephesians 1). As I have said many times, Boru's methodology epitomizes тαℓмυdic methodology—to wit, men know better than God what God intends and provides, so men will fix God's stupidity and "defeat" Him (Babylonian тαℓмυd Bava Metzia 59a-b).

• Boru gives lip service to honor God, then in the same breath denies God's Word, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Providence, Mercy, and Justice.

To date, I have ascribed all these corruptions and illogic to prideful ill-will, however I concede the possibility that a fraction of the described illogic is due to dyslexia and irrationality. I still maintain that ill-will is manifest. No person of good will refuses to respond to criticism.  Simply repeating one's errors and illogic is non-responsive. Yes, ill will is still manifest.
35
Health and Nutrition / Were you depressed as a teenager?
« Last post by Geremia on Yesterday at 02:28:33 PM »
The depression rate among teenagers keeps increasing. Why is this?

When I was a teenager, I didn't have depression.

I'm wondering how common teenage depression was among those here on CI.
36
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Man arrested for email
« Last post by WorldsAway on Yesterday at 02:27:45 PM »
*Copious amounts of yapping*
Ok, let us sum up exactly what you do not believe:

The Catholic Faith
37
Fighting Errors in the Modern World / Re: What to make of Alois Irlmaier
« Last post by St Giles on Yesterday at 02:22:01 PM »
It's very likely universal basic income (UBI) will involve at least a type of the mark of the beast. All the more reason for Trads to become close knit, self sufficient, and low tech in regular every day life, so that we may be better prepared to endure what is to come.
38
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Man arrested for email
« Last post by Boru on Yesterday at 02:18:29 PM »
Must he ask permission of his local Novus Ordo bishop to be conditionally ordained by a Resistance bishop? How do you think that would go? :popcorn:

Like I said, at this point he is probably more concerned with clearing his name than being reinstated to any position in the Vatican II sect

How do we know the faithful that this actually concerns have not been made aware of this matter? Do you go to a Resistance mass? Has anyone here been to one of Moran's masses? I've heard some Resistance mass centers in the UK/Ireland are pretty hush hush, close knit, even before the Moran affair. Probably for good reason. They'll keep receiving the sacraments, while you, the Hewkonians, Pfiefferites, Indulters, and Novus Ordoites who have brigaded this forum can keep yapping :fryingpan:

Ok, let us sum up exactly what you believe:

* You have NO regard for Canon Law. None.

* You applaud laicized clerics - who have been found guilty of child abuse - onto the Mass circuits.

* You applaud laicized secret clerics - who have been found gulity of child abuse - onto the Mass circuits without giving their name or background details.

* You fully support laicized clerics being ordained or conditionally ordained if they want to be ordained; it's their democratic right, right?

* It matters not if the cleric is actually a pedo as long as he can administer the traditional sacraments (ha ha, we have one over you non-resistance heads!).

Conclusion: You are the classic example of an enabler.
39
I live about an hour east of Portland (in Hood River, OR) and it really used to be a beautiful place.  That was a while ago unfortunately and it is now a major liberal hub.  Satanism wouldn't surprise me in the least.  Very sad to see it go to the dogs like it has.
40
Catholic Living in the Modern World / Re: School with Nuns?
« Last post by Justinian on Yesterday at 02:04:58 PM »
Like I said, it doesn't take a genius to homeschool. You can get used textbooks that they use in schools for cheap and teach out of that. You can access sample exams and tests online too. You even have online courses. I wasn't homeschooled and went through the public school system, so I'm quite familar with the education system. I also tutored high school students myself in math and some sciences so I feel pretty comfortable teaching my own kids.

The other problem with women getting degrees is that they subconsciously want a husband who has a degree or higher. They might look down on a man who has a good job but no degree. For example, female doctors typically marry up (another male doctor or a man of higher status).
Agree about the homeschooling. We also home school . I have a degree in an arts subject but am able to research the science and mathematics side. Up to a certain level anyway! The amount of people who say ‘so how do you teach MATHS?’ As if only a maths teacher can do this.
I actually think you’re right that some women with degrees can feel marrying a man without one is not possible… as if they’re somehow beneath them. But most sensible women wouldn’t be like this… in UK (I don’t know about USA and I think you’re there because you write math not maths haha) but in UK plumbers and builders can earn a shed load of money and are v intelligent especially if they own their own business. I have a friend who is a property developer, no degree-he was trying to explain to me about what he does, he has no degree but has learned as much on the job as he would in a lecture hall. I still think that an academic woman can go to university even in the current state of the education system. It very much depends on the university, her personality, if she lives at home or with Catholic friends or not, if shes strong in her faith etc etc….
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 20