Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Funny Stuff for Catholics => Topic started by: PatrickG on May 28, 2013, 05:41:28 AM
-
Mithrandylan - here we go:
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=2547.0
They don't seem to like the URL - you'll have to edit in the name yourself!
I've posted as you asked - it's a pleasure. I hope I didn't pull any punches.
This led me on to a more general thought about 'Catholic' forums - are they singled out for attacks by the Devil? The gruesome abomination on Fish Eaters is the most obvious, but crypto-feminism and feminism (here, I will say it plainly, erin is nice, Penelope and others) on S.D. as well as neo-Catholics running about (poche, Older Salt, Cool Cat) unchecked on both are very pernicious.
I expect the Devil does single out organs of resistance, whether as petty as a forum or as once great as the SSPX, to fight and attempt to destroy.
-
I wonder now if it was quite gentlemanly to criticise another forum on this one, so I am sorry. The original purpose stands.
-
I wonder now if it was quite gentlemanly to criticise another forum on this one, so I am sorry. The original purpose stands.
No it's good. I know the thread you're referencing.
They fly the traditional Catholic banner. It's all fair.
I consider the rule on Sussscipppe Dominnne and Fisheaters against criticizing other forums to be a pharisaical one. One, because if a forum is claiming to be Catholic while spreading error it has no right to protection. Two, both Vox Clamantis and Kaesekopf enforce this rule with inconsistency. They like the rule when it protects them, but allow people to break the rule when it makes them look good.
-
Mithrandylan - here we go:
http://www.s.com/forum/index.php?topic=2547.0
They don't seem to like the URL - you'll have to edit in the name yourself!
I've posted as you asked - it's a pleasure. I hope I didn't pull any punches.
This led me on to a more general thought about 'Catholic' forums - are they singled out for attacks by the Devil? The gruesome abomination on Fish Eaters is the most obvious, but crypto-feminism and feminism (here, I will say it plainly, erin is nice, Penelope and others) on S.D. as well as neo-Catholics running about (poche, Older Salt, Cool Cat) unchecked on both are very pernicious.
I expect the Devil does single out organs of resistance, whether as petty as a forum or as once great as the SSPX, to fight and attempt to destroy.
The rot begins at the top. A corrupt forum indicates a corrupt owner. Vox is corrupt. And Kaesekopf is infected with feminism and also appears somewhat Judaized. He started a thread recently to express bewilderment as to why many Catholics show an interest in the Jews.
-
Mithrandylan - here we go:
http://www.s.com/forum/index.php?topic=2547.0
They don't seem to like the URL - you'll have to edit in the name yourself!
I've posted as you asked - it's a pleasure. I hope I didn't pull any punches.
This led me on to a more general thought about 'Catholic' forums - are they singled out for attacks by the Devil? The gruesome abomination on Fish Eaters is the most obvious, but crypto-feminism and feminism (here, I will say it plainly, erin is nice, Penelope and others) on S.D. as well as neo-Catholics running about (poche, Older Salt, Cool Cat) unchecked on both are very pernicious.
I expect the Devil does single out organs of resistance, whether as petty as a forum or as once great as the SSPX, to fight and attempt to destroy.
The Devil's modus operandi has not changed in 2000 years - "Divide and Conquer" - this applies to wherever truth and unity is found, including Catholic Forums.
When forum owners permit the libs and neo's to divide, they will conquer - simply reference FE and the route it took into the sewer. If SD's owner permits the libs and neo's to spread their fem and NO garbage without correction, SD will end up being, if not already, conquered as well.
SD would have done much better to model itself after CathInfo instead of FE - especially after seeing how the libs and NOers were able to send FE sliding into the septic tank.
-
There's a substantial contrast in the quality of the criticism that goes on between these self-described trad Catholic forums. The people on this forum formulate sound arguments and point to specific violations of Catholic teaching on other forums like Fisheaters, IgnisArdens, and Susscippe Dominnee. But the people on these other forums do not treat CathInfo with similar thoughtfulness. They offer no arguments against this forum. They solely rely on putdowns. You'd think someone at some time would have some concrete criticism of this forum, but no one ever does. I've been reading these people criticize CathInfo for years and all they have to offer is schoolyard putdowns.
-
There's a substantial contrast in the quality of the criticism that goes on between these self-described trad Catholic forums. The people on this forum formulate sound arguments and point to specific violations of Catholic teaching on other forums like Fisheaters, IgnisArdens, and Susscippe Dominnee. But the people on these other forums do not treat CathInfo with similar thoughtfulness. They offer no arguments against this forum. They solely rely on putdowns. You'd think someone at some time would have some concrete criticism of this forum, but no one ever does. I've been reading these people criticize CathInfo for years and all they have to offer is schoolyard putdowns.
I agree.
I really only peruse the other forums very little but it does not take much to see the liberal position they hold most of the time, most notably with their direct or indirect sympathy toward the destroyer of the Church - the NO.
Folks like Mith have little in common with the libs there - and some others there will discover the same thing at some point. Just a matter of when.
-
If the owner at Fish Kill treated the libs, feminαzιs, and defenders of the Chosenites with the harshness that she administers to sedes and people who simply defend the Faith, she wouldn't be conducting the runaway train she is now.
-
SD is an utter joke. There are certain members there who give Catholicism a bad name, and its owner always takes up for the liberals, just like VoxClamantis.
-
Mithrandylan - here we go:
http://www.s.com/forum/index.php?topic=2547.0
The requested URL "www.s.com" cannot be found or is not available. Please check the spelling or try again later.
-
I don't know much about the other Catholic forums. I don't like reading liberal garbage so I avoid fisheaters and the other neo-trad forums. I sometimes go to bellarmine forums. I can read that forum, but most of my forum time is spent here.
-
Mithrandylan - here we go:
http://www.s.com/forum/index.php?topic=2547.0
The requested URL "www.s.com" cannot be found or is not available. Please check the spelling or try again later.
You have to replace "s" with "s u s c i p e d o m i n e" in the URL.
-
This forum is by far the most catholic. Some of the other's have made me have to jump in the shower and bathe. The filth and stench are palatable.
I pray that this forum remains clean. We have to all be vigilant, as Mathew has pointed out, for this to happen.
Pax
-
This forum is by far the most catholic. Some of the other's have made me have to jump in the shower and bathe. The filth and stench are palatable.
I pray that this forum remains clean. We have to all be vigilant, as Mathew has pointed out, for this to happen.
Pax
Yes. Nip it in the bud, if you will.
-
This forum is by far the most catholic. Some of the other's have made me have to jump in the shower and bathe. The filth and stench are palatable.
I pray that this forum remains clean. We have to all be vigilant, as Mathew has pointed out, for this to happen.
Pax
Quite right.
I am very grateful for CI, especially at my reception here considering that I have been quite uncharitable in the past, before I was a traditional Catholic, hanging on to the ruins of the NO.
I was originally under the impression that SD was going to be a traditional forum, as the forum administrator and mods had been banned or run out of FE for being 'disrespectful to the pope' and 'bashing the NO.' My naivete is at fault here. It did not take long to see that it was another social site with a Catholic backdrop. What I'm about to say was deleted from the forum, but SD reminds me of a Martin Scorcese flick. Scandal, liberalism and indecency with a Catholic imagery backdrop. It's an offense to piety that they would impose the Sacred Heart Image upon that site.
The most recent turn of events is just the nasty culmination of the majority of the sites history, which merely tolerates traditional Catholicism. The administration endorses and promotes liberal and feminist sentiments, and as Bp. Williamson says, when the liberal is challenged the dove becomes a screeching and scratching hawk.
I made the mistake of assuming FE to be a good place for traditional Catholics and it was too late to speak up by the time I was banned. I won't make that mistake with SD. The administration sees fit to bully me off of the forum, as it were, so as not to ban me and make a 'martyr' of sorts who 'bad mouths' them other places. That's another thing-- the grievances against the feminism and liberalism are never satisfied, they are simply referred to as bad mouthing and similar phrases. Anyways, they prefer that I bad mouth them there, where they can lock and delete my posts. I have an extensive catalog of the patently unCatholic events that have occurred there, from users posting songs which sɛҳuąƖize crucifixion (btw-- a moderator had to ask the Administrators permission to remove that video... months after the fact) the Admin referring to the creators of St Mary's Resistance website as 'morons' the charges against me that I am a rapist, the maligning of my wife, NO apologizing, feminist propaganda promoted and defended... the list goes on.
I recall the beginning of my reversion, joining up at FE and how I was appalled at the 'pompous jerks' who criminalized the NO and relentlessly posted Church Teaching about sensitive topics. It was those people, those traditional Catholics, that I so unjustly maligned as kooks and nutters and their relentless love and zeal for the faith that brought me to taking the faith seriously. Not the liberals who wanted to grey all the principles and make excuses for vice and imperfection. So, if God can use me as a tool to perform a similar service to a person who might be in my position, so be it. Deus Vult!
I will stay on SD to testify to the faith as best I know how. I wish I would have had the presence of mind to do that with FE. No doubt, administration of that forum will see this post and will talk about how I'm not man enough to say this on SD.... news flash, I've been saying it all for months, publicly, and privately, on that forum. NOTHING in this post is news to anyone who reads SD.
Thanks to Matthew and the good hearted traditional Catholics who make up CI. May God see fit to strengthen your faith and bring you ever closer to Him.
-
Well Dylan, I liked your previous, amused and nonchalant tack more:
I hope you didn't report it. That post should stand, so that readers can understand how the mind of the liberal works.
But it's understandable that the cruddy moderating, personal attacks, and atmosphere of liberalism got you fed up.
There seems to be a genre of traditionalists who bring strong rhetoric against gαys and Muslims, but are weak on feminism, the Jews and Zionism, and conciliarism, while being relatively Americanist and unsupportive of social and political hierarchy, the importance of blood heredity in families, nations, and races (not to start that argument), and other things like that. It's an identifiable type.
-
Quite right Graham. I also would have preferred to have continue on in that manner. It would have done me well, to heed the words of H.E. Williamson, and remember that you cannot reason with a liberal. The mind mush has set in. Prayers, indeed.
-
I'm sorry to hear what has happened to you over there, Mith.
It's another example of how liberals are put on a pedestal over there, similar to FE, and then good Trads are bullied by the admin for no reason.
-
Like I said, SD is FishEaters 2.0, and it is really an embarassment to Traditional Catholicism.
-
Like I said, SD is FishEaters 2.0, and it is really an embarassment to Traditional Catholicism.
Quite right.
-
Just curious, is Teilo and a Half Hobbledehoy? He hasn't posted since March 31st and I notice Teilo posted lots of those pictures over there that Hobbledehoy posted here.
-
I will stay on SD to testify to the faith as best I know how. I wish I would have had the presence of mind to do that with FE.
That's good. I like to read your posts over there. You, Graham, Gottmituns and some others do a good job.
-
Just curious, is Teilo and a Half Hobbledehoy? He hasn't posted since March 31st and I notice Teilo posted lots of those pictures over there that Hobbledehoy posted here.
Yes, he is.
-
Just curious, is Teilo and a Half Hobbledehoy? He hasn't posted since March 31st and I notice Teilo posted lots of those pictures over there that Hobbledehoy posted here.
Yes, he is.
Hmm I missed that. Did he have a dramatic exit from this forum on some thread? If so I can't find it. Do you know why he prefers that forum to this one?
-
No, Hobble just ceased posting one day.
As to why he prefers SD to CI, I think I know why, but I am not going to detail the reasons.
Hatchc, if you don't mind me asking, did you post on SD as Ben?
-
I had always wondered who Ben was. Very sad to see him go. I'm not sure if I was always on my best behavior towards Ben. HatchC, if you are, sorry for being a jerk sometimes.
-
Just curious, is Teilo and a Half Hobbledehoy? He hasn't posted since March 31st and I notice Teilo posted lots of those pictures over there that Hobbledehoy posted here.
Yes, he is.
Hmm I missed that. Did he have a dramatic exit from this forum on some thread? If so I can't find it. Do you know why he prefers that forum to this one?
There is a thread in the anonymous section where he talks about changing to conciliarism. That's the closest there is to a dramatic exit. I haven't a clue why he joined SD afterwards, considering it is such a new and small forum.
I had the link in a PM, but with the latest streamlining it was deleted. I'm not sure where the exchange is now. I think it might be in the Questions for Sigismund thread.
-
No, Hobble just ceased posting one day.
As to why he prefers SD to CI, I think I know why, but I am not going to detail the reasons.
Hatchc, if you don't mind me asking, did you post on SD as Ben?
It appears he hasn't posted on SD for a while so maybe he doesn't like that forum either anymore.
Yes, I was Ben over there.
-
I will say that there is one person who can be partly blamed for his departure from CI.
I won't reveal who they are.
-
Yes, I was Ben over there.
Ah, good to have you here with us, Ben! I always thought you were one of the good posters on SD.
-
I had always wondered who Ben was. Very sad to see him go. I'm not sure if I was always on my best behavior towards Ben. HatchC, if you are, sorry for being a jerk sometimes.
You treated me pretty well. I was purposefully confrontational over there so I didn't expect people to handle me with kid gloves. No big deal. :cheers:
-
No, Hobble just ceased posting one day.
As to why he prefers SD to CI, I think I know why, but I am not going to detail the reasons.
Hatchc, if you don't mind me asking, did you post on SD as Ben?
It appears he hasn't posted on SD for a while so maybe he doesn't like that forum either anymore.
Yes, I was Ben over there.
Good to see you!
-
I had always wondered who Ben was. Very sad to see him go. I'm not sure if I was always on my best behavior towards Ben. HatchC, if you are, sorry for being a jerk sometimes.
You treated me pretty well. I was purposefully confrontational over there so I didn't expect people to handle me with kid gloves. No big deal. :cheers:
I'm curious as to why you'd purposefully be confrontational on a trad forum. Isn't that somewhat dishonest? Is that a charitable way to post?
-
I had always wondered who Ben was. Very sad to see him go. I'm not sure if I was always on my best behavior towards Ben. HatchC, if you are, sorry for being a jerk sometimes.
You treated me pretty well. I was purposefully confrontational over there so I didn't expect people to handle me with kid gloves. No big deal. :cheers:
I'm curious as to why you'd purposefully be confrontational on a trad forum. Isn't that somewhat dishonest? Is that a charitable way to post?
Pales in comparison to allowing Protestants to spew heresy and defending liberals over Trads like a certain administrator of a certain forum does.
:smirk:
-
Just curious, is Teilo and a Half Hobbledehoy? He hasn't posted since March 31st and I notice Teilo posted lots of those pictures over there that Hobbledehoy posted here.
Yes, he is.
Hmm I missed that. Did he have a dramatic exit from this forum on some thread? If so I can't find it. Do you know why he prefers that forum to this one?
There is a thread in the anonymous section where he talks about changing to conciliarism. That's the closest there is to a dramatic exit.
I can't say I'm surprised. I never noticed him posting on controversial issues like Telesphorus does, which is usually a bad sign.
-
I had always wondered who Ben was. Very sad to see him go. I'm not sure if I was always on my best behavior towards Ben. HatchC, if you are, sorry for being a jerk sometimes.
You treated me pretty well. I was purposefully confrontational over there so I didn't expect people to handle me with kid gloves. No big deal. :cheers:
I'm curious as to why you'd purposefully be confrontational on a trad forum. Isn't that somewhat dishonest? Is that a charitable way to post?
Pales in comparison to allowing Protestants to spew heresy and defending liberals over Trads like a certain administrator of a certain forum does.
:smirk:
That's not what I asked about. It's funny how you assert unbiased traditionalism and yet employ liberal logic.
Catholic: "Why do you cohabit with your girlfriend. Doing so is mortally sinful."
Liberal: "Pales in comparison to murdering people. It's not like I'm doing that."
-
Speaking of "dishonesty", it's a bit dishonest that the owner of SD tries to portray himself as a fan of Bishop Williamson when he clearly is pro-Fellay.
Why don't you call him out on that, Walt?
-
Speaking of "dishonesty", it's a bit dishonest that the owner of SD tries to portray himself as a fan of Bishop Williamson when he clearly is pro-Fellay.
Why don't you call him out on that, Walt?
I'm not really here to discuss what KK does or doesn't think. He can speak to that himself. What I do know is that all of the moderators like Bishop Williamson, even if the extent to which they agree with him varies.
Some like him more than others.
-
Some people draw the line at the normalization of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. They find themselves marginalized.
Some of them are the very ones who were active collaborators in the process of marginalizing others who held to traditional positions.
A lot of trads despair over the pathological behavior of the trad movement, and find certain arguments (which ultimately depend on glossing over the problems of an apostate hierarchy) a compelling excuse to become indultarians.
It's very unfortunate. It becomes easy to see how the liberals have won so much, when one sees how often trads are at each others throats.
-
I had always wondered who Ben was. Very sad to see him go. I'm not sure if I was always on my best behavior towards Ben. HatchC, if you are, sorry for being a jerk sometimes.
You treated me pretty well. I was purposefully confrontational over there so I didn't expect people to handle me with kid gloves. No big deal. :cheers:
I'm curious as to why you'd purposefully be confrontational on a trad forum. Isn't that somewhat dishonest? Is that a charitable way to post?
Because it's not a trad forum.
Glad to see you here, Mr. Blah!
-
What I do know is that all of the moderators like Bishop Williamson, even if the extent to which they agree with him varies.
Yet only one actually supports him.
That's a problem.
-
Walty, you and Jaynek can't justify SD's liberalism no matter how much you try, I'm afraid.
-
I had always wondered who Ben was. Very sad to see him go. I'm not sure if I was always on my best behavior towards Ben. HatchC, if you are, sorry for being a jerk sometimes.
You treated me pretty well. I was purposefully confrontational over there so I didn't expect people to handle me with kid gloves. No big deal. :cheers:
I'm curious as to why you'd purposefully be confrontational on a trad forum. Isn't that somewhat dishonest? Is that a charitable way to post?
Because it's not a trad forum.
Glad to see you here, Mr. Blah!
So you admit that it wasn't charitable? So you can be dishonest so long as it is not to or around traditionalists?
-
Walty once said he'd like to come to this forum and troll. This was shortly after the Laura affair when he thought Fisheaters was going down for good. He was partially jesting, but still. His attitude towards this forum has always been one of contempt. So I think he can understand why I would have a similarly contemptuous attitude towards SD. It's not like I hid it. I was genuinely surprised I lasted as long as I did over there. I assume they just kept me around to generate activity on a budding forum.
I might troll over there again in the future.
-
Walty, you and Jaynek can't justify SD's liberalism no matter how much you try, I'm afraid.
I didn't come here to justify anything and I somewhat rarely agree with Jayne, so I don't know where that sentiment comes from.
But all of this proves that trad forums have a predilection for speaking about posters instead of poster's ideas.
-
Walty once said he'd like to come to this forum and troll. This was shortly after the Laura affair when he thought Fisheaters was going down for good. He was partially jesting, but still. His attitude towards this forum has always been one of contempt. So I think he can understand why I would have a similarly contemptuous attitude towards SD. It's not like I hid it. I was genuinely surprised I lasted as long as I did over there. I assume they just kept me around to generate activity on a budding forum.
I might troll over there again in the future.
My attitude toward this forum has not always been one of contempt. I don't recall saying that I was going to troll here, but it's possible. Still, that whole fiasco was two years ago.
You might be surprised to know that I have more sympathy for this forum and will stand up for posters here from time to time.
But as I've said, if I post here (or anywhere) it's because I want to discuss ideas and not people. Forum wars don't help any of us grow in virtue.
-
Why do you prefer SD and Fisheaters (before the homo promotion) to this one?
-
Why do you prefer SD and Fisheaters (before the homo promotion) to this one?
I don't prefer Fisheaters to this forum in any way. I left FE because of its many, many faults months ago, before the Impy fiasco.
-
Why do you prefer SD and Fisheaters (before the homo promotion) to this one?
I don't prefer Fisheaters to this forum in any way. I left FE because of its many, many faults months ago, before the Impy fiasco.
Yeah but you liked it for years before the homo promotion of the last year. Why did you prefer it to this forum? And why do you prefer SD to this forum?
-
Why do you prefer SD and Fisheaters (before the homo promotion) to this one?
I don't prefer Fisheaters to this forum in any way. I left FE because of its many, many faults months ago, before the Impy fiasco.
Yeah but you liked it for years before the homo promotion of the last year. Why did you prefer it to this forum? And why do you prefer SD to this forum?
I don't mind answering your question but perhaps you can determine your attitude toward me by my ideas and not by the places with which I have associated.
When I joined FE I was quite liberal. That changed slowly over the years. The forum did as well, but in the opposite direction. But there's a sense of loyalty to a place when you've spent so much time there and so many great posters helped convert you to traditionalism. I also met my wife there.
So I attempted, in whatever small way I could, to help keep FE traditional. Once it became apparent that that wasn't going to happen, I left.
-
I didn't come here to justify anything and I somewhat rarely agree with Jayne, so I don't know where that sentiment comes from.
I get the impression that you did come here to defend SD because you were aware of this thread somehow. Afterall, it's not often that you make a visit to CatholicInfo.
As for my remark about Jaynek, I was refering to the fact that she's on here thumbing up and down posts.
-
I came here, in part, to discuss the issue on SD, yes. But I show up here from time to time. I've had an account here for almost 3 years.
-
On a related note, I just saw "Teilo and a Half" post this on SD:
Well, it has come to my attention that some b*stards at CI apparently think I'm Hobbles.
Well, I'm not.
And if you don't believe it, or have some pathological urge to believe it, then you can just f*ck off.
I am tired of this crap. I'm deleting those stupid scans soon, I should have never agreed to what Hobbles proposed to me earlier this year.
And the question of where he is and what he's doing? I myself don't know. He could be dead for all I know, or institutionalized again.
So, if you want to act like immature idiots and malign me on CI or whatever, that's great for you. I hope you get a life soon.
We're ticking him off, apparently, so whoever he is, I think we'd better quit mentioning him.
-
Getting back to the topic:
I came here, in part, to discuss the issue on SD, yes.
Fair enough.
However, it's interesting that people from SD come here to discuss it, but the forum's admin isn't doing anything to resolve the issue. And he won't, either.
-
Getting back to the topic:
I came here, in part, to discuss the issue on SD, yes.
Fair enough.
However, it's interesting that people from SD come here to discuss it, but the forum's admin isn't doing anything to resolve the issue. And he won't, either.
It's fascinating!
-
On a related note, I just saw "Teilo and a Half" post this on SD:
Well, it has come to my attention that some b*stards at CI apparently think I'm Hobbles.
Well, I'm not.
And if you don't believe it, or have some pathological urge to believe it, then you can just f*ck off.
I am tired of this crap. I'm deleting those stupid scans soon, I should have never agreed to what Hobbles proposed to me earlier this year.
And the question of where he is and what he's doing? I myself don't know. He could be dead for all I know, or institutionalized again.
So, if you want to act like immature idiots and malign me on CI or whatever, that's great for you. I hope you get a life soon.
We're ticking him off, apparently, so whoever he is, I think we'd better quit mentioning him.
LOL, this is the guy who said Catholics shouldn't use the words "fat" and "janitor" - now swearing like a sailor.
Well, I'll take his word for it. I suppose I was wrong about him being Hobbles.
-
Why do you prefer SD and Fisheaters (before the homo promotion) to this one?
I don't prefer Fisheaters to this forum in any way. I left FE because of its many, many faults months ago, before the Impy fiasco.
Yeah but you liked it for years before the homo promotion of the last year. Why did you prefer it to this forum? And why do you prefer SD to this forum?
I don't mind answering your question but perhaps you can determine your attitude toward me by my ideas and not by the places with which I have associated.
No I think I'll size you up after my own fashion. It's not uncommon to come across people in trad circles who are very careful to not promote error, but yet don't rebuke those who do. That's why I call you Mr. Blah. You're like a politician. You always make sure not to say anything that would place you under the microscope. I don't trust you. Not because I think you are the devil incarnate. You seem like a decent guy. You make me laugh at times, and I like many of your posts I've read over the years. You're certainly a smart guy. But you have a shifty and unstable spirit, which is a sign of worldliness.
You can know a man by the company he keeps. You're buddy-buddy with Kaesekopf. This is a guy who has nothing but great things to say about an admitted feminist (erinisnice), treats the crypto-Jew JayneK with kid gloves, baits and berates Mithrandylan for defending Church teaching, was a major player in a thread a while back on FE where he accused Telesphorus of being a stalker and a sɛҳuąƖ predator (he's never apologized), and I could go on.
The only way to explain it is that he is like you and you are like him.
-
Well, I'll take his word for it. I suppose I was wrong about him being Hobbles.
Regardless, I am somewhat skeptical of people like Hobbledehoy and INPEFESS who post lots of religious texts, but steer clear of discussing touchy contemporary issues. It's a good tactic to use to appear solidly traditional. Not that that is their MO.
-
was a major player in a thread a while back on FE where he accused Telesphorus of being a stalker and a sɛҳuąƖ predator (he's never apologized),
Wow, that is extremely low.
Only proves our point about KK.
-
was a major player in a thread a while back on FE where he accused Telesphorus of being a stalker and a sɛҳuąƖ predator (he's never apologized),
Wow, that is extremely low.
Only proves our point about KK.
He might claim that he was only joking. But I don't buy it. There was a lot of pure malevolence on that thread.
-
Why do you prefer SD and Fisheaters (before the homo promotion) to this one?
I don't prefer Fisheaters to this forum in any way. I left FE because of its many, many faults months ago, before the Impy fiasco.
Yeah but you liked it for years before the homo promotion of the last year. Why did you prefer it to this forum? And why do you prefer SD to this forum?
I don't mind answering your question but perhaps you can determine your attitude toward me by my ideas and not by the places with which I have associated.
No I think I'll size you up after my own fashion. It's not uncommon to come across people in trad circles who are very careful to not promote error, but yet don't rebuke those who do. That's why I call you Mr. Blah. You're like a politician. You always make sure not to say anything that would place you under the microscope. I don't trust you. Not because I think you are the devil incarnate. You seem like a decent guy. You make me laugh at times, and I like many of your posts I've read over the years. You're certainly a smart guy. But you have a shifty and unstable spirit, which is a sign of worldliness.
You can know a man by the company he keeps. You're buddy-buddy with Kaesekopf. This is a guy who has nothing but great things to say about an admitted feminist (erinisnice), treats the crypto-Jew JayneK with kid gloves, baits and berates Mithrandylan for defending Church teaching, was a major player in a thread a while back on FE where he accused Telesphorus of being a stalker and a sɛҳuąƖ predator (he's never apologized), and I could go on.
The only way to explain it is that he is like you and you are like him.
I don't know what to tell you. I'm buddy-buddy with a lot of folks that I disagree with, some of them quite passionately so. I'm not going to go into details on any of the people you've mentioned because they aren't here (in this thread or on this forum) to speak for themselves, but I disagree with Jayne and Erin much, much more often than I agree with them.
I also spoke out against the treatment of Telesphorus on FE. I thought what happened there was shameful.
I suppose I can see why you'd find me shifty. Of course, I don't think I am that way. Diplomatic? Sure, but I don't think at the expense of speaking the truth in charity, whether that offends or not. I think that the way I post may give the illusion that I'm more moderate than I really am. I've become quite disillusioned recently with being needlessly inflammatory and sarcastic. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that on every trad fora around.
I personally find INP to be an inspiration in that regard. The guy doesn't lay down when it comes to doctrine by any stretch of the imagination, but you'll never catch him getting personal digs in just because someone disagrees with him. That's few and far between.
Some people mistake that for being light on the faith. I don't think that's a fair assessment in the slightest, but I suppose you can be the judge of that.
-
What is Teilo and a Half's user name on CathInfo?
-
What is Teilo and a Half's user name on CathInfo?
He is not on here.
-
No, Hobble just ceased posting one day.
As to why he prefers SD to CI, I think I know why, but I am not going to detail the reasons.
Hatchc, if you don't mind me asking, did you post on SD as Ben?
What's SD?
-
You can know a man by the company he keeps. You're buddy-buddy with Kaesekopf. This is a guy who has nothing but great things to say about an admitted feminist (erinisnice), treats the crypto-Jew JayneK with kid gloves, baits and berates Mithrandylan for defending Church teaching, was a major player in a thread a while back on FE where he accused Telesphorus of being a stalker and a sɛҳuąƖ predator (he's never apologized), and I could go on.
You badly understand what happens between KK and me. You pretty much have it backwards. I walk on eggshells to avoid offending him or breaking any of the rules. I fully expect to be kicked out instantly the moment I break a rule. I did not get along with him when we were both on FE and there was a lot of bad feeling between us. (Although I have come to respect him now.)
All you are seeing is a man of honour keeping his word. He said that anyone who kept the rules could post there and I keep the rules. He does not throw me out for being a crypto-Jew, presumably because a man of integrity does not assume such a thing about a person without trial or evidence. It is similar to the situation here on CI. Matthew, another man of integrity, allows me to post here and I do not make any trouble for him.
-
Walty, you and Jaynek can't justify SD's liberalism no matter how much you try, I'm afraid.
I didn't come here to justify anything and I somewhat rarely agree with Jayne, so I don't know where that sentiment comes from.
Yes, it seems odd to see such a statement. Walty is usually civil to me, as he is civil to most people, but he disagrees with me quite often.
-
What's SD?
It's a trad forum that started up in December.
-
Jaynek, you've already broken a rule there by smearing one of SD's moderators (tmw). I watched what happened, and you were clearly mistreating him. You just don't like him because he's the most Traditional moderator SD has.
-
He does not throw me out for being a crypto-Jew, presumably because a man of integrity does not assume such a thing about a person without trial or evidence. It is similar to the situation here on CI. Matthew, another man of integrity, allows me to post here and I do not make any trouble for him.
KK participated on this thread: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3452856.0.html
-
What's SD?
It's a forum that started up in December.
Fixed it for ye.
-
Walty, that's the reply I was expecting. It's so reasonable.
-
I don't know what to tell you. I'm buddy-buddy with a lot of folks that I disagree with, some of them quite passionately so. I'm not going to go into details on any of the people you've mentioned because they aren't here (in this thread or on this forum) to speak for themselves, but I disagree with Jayne and Erin much, much more often than I agree with them.
I also spoke out against the treatment of Telesphorus on FE. I thought what happened there was shameful.
I suppose I can see why you'd find me shifty. Of course, I don't think I am that way. Diplomatic? Sure, but I don't think at the expense of speaking the truth in charity, whether that offends or not. I think that the way I post may give the illusion that I'm more moderate than I really am. I've become quite disillusioned recently with being needlessly inflammatory and sarcastic. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that on every trad fora around.
I personally find INP to be an inspiration in that regard. The guy doesn't lay down when it comes to doctrine by any stretch of the imagination, but you'll never catch him getting personal digs in just because someone disagrees with him. That's few and far between.
Some people mistake that for being light on the faith. I don't think that's a fair assessment in the slightest, but I suppose you can be the judge of that.
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff. I don't know what to tell you. You are one of them. You may be the oiliest person on any of these forums.
If you think what happened to Telesphorus is so shameful then why are you on such good terms with KK?
You're slithery.
-
I think the thing that has intrigued me about Walty for a while is that he is so rarely attacked. He has this politician's ability to stay off the radar and pass himself off as the reasonable, thoughtful type. That puts him on my radar.
I wonder if he comes from a political family, or maybe his dad is a lawyer.
-
Jaynek, you've already broken a rule there by smearing one of SD's moderators (tmw). I watched what happened, and you were clearly mistreating him. You just don't like him because he's the most Traditional moderator SD has.
I was upset with tmw for not replying to a PM that he had said he would. It turns out that he had replied but it had gotten lost somehow. I regret if this misunderstanding led me to write anything that I should not have, although I do not think anything could reasonably be called "smearing".
I do not dislike tmw. I think he is a good moderator and I try to treat him with respect.
-
I think the thing that has intrigued me about Walty for a while is that he is so rarely attacked. He has this politician's ability to stay off the radar and pass himself off as the reasonable, thoughtful type. That puts him on my radar.
I wonder if he comes from a political family, or maybe his dad is a lawyer.
Or maybe he really is thoughtful and reasonable.
-
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff.
Do you actually know any crypto-Jews or do you just falsely accuse others as you have accused me?
-
I think the thing that has intrigued me about Walty for a while is that he is so rarely attacked. He has this politician's ability to stay off the radar and pass himself off as the reasonable, thoughtful type. That puts him on my radar.
I wonder if he comes from a political family, or maybe his dad is a lawyer.
Or maybe he really is thoughtful and reasonable.
Nah. I ruled out that possibility long ago. :laugh1:
I'd characterize Walty/Louis IX as careful and clever.
-
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff.
Do you actually know any crypto-Jews or do you just falsely accuse others as you have accused me?
I'm sure I know some. Any Jews who convert to the Church and yet reject the teaching that Jews are enemies of the Faith can be justifiably accused of being crypto-Jews.
-
Walty, that's the reply I was expecting. It's so reasonable.
Is reason a vice? Would it have pleased you more if it was unreasonable?
-
I think the thing that has intrigued me about Walty for a while is that he is so rarely attacked. He has this politician's ability to stay off the radar and pass himself off as the reasonable, thoughtful type. That puts him on my radar.
I wonder if he comes from a political family, or maybe his dad is a lawyer.
Hahaha. My father is a plumber.
-
Walty, that's the reply I was expecting. It's so reasonable.
Is reason a vice? Would it have pleased you more if it was unreasonable?
You missed the sarcasm.
Is he a lawyerly plumber?
-
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff.
Do you actually know any crypto-Jews or do you just falsely accuse others as you have accused me?
I'm sure I know some. Any Jews who convert to the Church and yet reject the teaching that Jews are enemies of the Faith can be justifiably accused of being crypto-Jews.
I do not reject the Church's teaching that Jews are the enemy of the Faith. I believe it in the sense that the Church meant it. I believe it is imprudent to says that Jews are the enemies of Catholics in situations in which it is likely to be misunderstood. This is a position that any traditional Catholic might hold. It is not evidence that I am a crypto-Jew.
-
I think the thing that has intrigued me about Walty for a while is that he is so rarely attacked. He has this politician's ability to stay off the radar and pass himself off as the reasonable, thoughtful type. That puts him on my radar.
I wonder if he comes from a political family, or maybe his dad is a lawyer.
Or maybe he really is thoughtful and reasonable.
Nah. I ruled out that possibility long ago. :laugh1:
I'd characterize Walty/Louis IX as careful and clever.
I do not think that you are a good judge of character.
-
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff.
Do you actually know any crypto-Jews or do you just falsely accuse others as you have accused me?
I'm sure I know some. Any Jews who convert to the Church and yet reject the teaching that Jews are enemies of the Faith can be justifiably accused of being crypto-Jews.
I do not reject the Church's teaching that Jews are the enemy of the Faith. I believe it in the sense that the Church meant it. I believe it is imprudent to says that Jews are the enemies of Catholics in situations in which it is likely to be misunderstood. This is a position that any traditional Catholic might hold. It is not evidence that I am a crypto-Jew.
What other sense is it meant?
And you changed your tune. That's not what you say on that thread.
-
"Being anti-Jєωιѕн is not an important part of Catholicism. It is a form of bigotry and Catholicism is much better off without it."
"Well it is a good thing that I did not run into people saying that the core of Catholicism is being anti-Jєωιѕн before I became Catholic. I probably would never have joined the Church."
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3452856.60.html
No one on that thread said it was the core of Catholicism, but it is a part of the core of Catholicism.
-
I don't know what to tell you. I'm buddy-buddy with a lot of folks that I disagree with, some of them quite passionately so. I'm not going to go into details on any of the people you've mentioned because they aren't here (in this thread or on this forum) to speak for themselves, but I disagree with Jayne and Erin much, much more often than I agree with them.
I also spoke out against the treatment of Telesphorus on FE. I thought what happened there was shameful.
I suppose I can see why you'd find me shifty. Of course, I don't think I am that way. Diplomatic? Sure, but I don't think at the expense of speaking the truth in charity, whether that offends or not. I think that the way I post may give the illusion that I'm more moderate than I really am. I've become quite disillusioned recently with being needlessly inflammatory and sarcastic. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that on every trad fora around.
I personally find INP to be an inspiration in that regard. The guy doesn't lay down when it comes to doctrine by any stretch of the imagination, but you'll never catch him getting personal digs in just because someone disagrees with him. That's few and far between.
Some people mistake that for being light on the faith. I don't think that's a fair assessment in the slightest, but I suppose you can be the judge of that.
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff. I don't know what to tell you. You are one of them. You may be the oiliest person on any of these forums.
If you think what happened to Telesphorus is so shameful then why are you on such good terms with KK?
You're slithery.
Why hasn't Walty replied to this?
I'm really curious to know why such a thoughtful and reasonable guy such as he would be buddy-buddy with one of the ringleaders of what he considers a shameful episode on FE.
You're a moral fraud, Walty.
-
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff.
Do you actually know any crypto-Jews or do you just falsely accuse others as you have accused me?
I'm sure I know some. Any Jews who convert to the Church and yet reject the teaching that Jews are enemies of the Faith can be justifiably accused of being crypto-Jews.
I do not reject the Church's teaching that Jews are the enemy of the Faith. I believe it in the sense that the Church meant it. I believe it is imprudent to says that Jews are the enemies of Catholics in situations in which it is likely to be misunderstood. This is a position that any traditional Catholic might hold. It is not evidence that I am a crypto-Jew.
What other sense is it meant?
And you changed your tune. That's not what you say on that thread.
It is exactly what I said on that thread: see post (http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3452856.msg33785062.html#msg33785062)
JayneK:
The phrase, "the Jews are our enemies" has appeared in this thread without qualifier more than once. On its own, it is an unclear and misleading statement. It can even be said by people who believe something antithetical to Church teaching.
Graham:
Ah, but what about context, Jayne ? LOL Very convenient for you.
Like it or not, you've changed your tune over the course of our discussion here. I haven't, but I won't push the point, since we're now in agreement. The Jews are our enemies, and they are also dear to God. My work is done.
JayneK:
As I recall the context, it was first introduced by Barbara and I do not think she would agree that modern Jews are also dear to God.
I do not think it is prudent to say something that needs a whole bunch of explanation every time it gets said and will possibly be misunderstood as having an offensive meaning. Especially when, If it is misunderstood, it has a good chance of interfering with drawing souls to Christ. Just because it is technically true in a specific sense does not mean it is a good idea to say it.
-
"Being anti-Jєωιѕн is not an important part of Catholicism. It is a form of bigotry and Catholicism is much better off without it."
"Well it is a good thing that I did not run into people saying that the core of Catholicism is being anti-Jєωιѕн before I became Catholic. I probably would never have joined the Church."
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3452856.60.html
No one on that thread said it was the core of Catholicism, but it is a part of the core of Catholicism.
Anyone who reads the entire thread can see that I hold a traditional Catholic understanding of Jews and Judaism. You take little bits out of context to try to make it appear otherwise.
-
I'm really curious to know why such a thoughtful and reasonable guy such as he would be buddy-buddy with one of the ringleaders of what he considers a shameful episode on FE.
You're a moral fraud, Walty.
I cannot speak for Walty, but I too argued strenuously against KK in that thread. I do not hold it against KK now because it happened years ago and KK has changed a lot since then. He has different positions on many topics (more SSPX) and is generally more mature.
-
I don't know what to tell you. I'm buddy-buddy with a lot of folks that I disagree with, some of them quite passionately so...
Why hasn't Walty replied to this?
I'm really curious to know why such a thoughtful and reasonable guy such as he would be buddy-buddy with one of the ringleaders of what he considers a shameful episode on FE.
You're a moral fraud, Walty.
Why would he?
Why would anyone?
-
What's SD?
It's a forum that started up in December.
Fixed it for ye.
Grow up.
-
Jayne you started by saying that Catholics must not think of Jews as enemies, then after the St Paul shifted to saying they are our enemies in a very limited sense, but that we shouldn't say that out loud. I have to say it fits a neat pattern of attempting to diminish what Scripture says. You also support the emancipation of the Jews in the modern period, which is certainly at odds with the social kingship of Christ.
-
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff.
Do you actually know any crypto-Jews or do you just falsely accuse others as you have accused me?
I'm sure I know some. Any Jews who convert to the Church and yet reject the teaching that Jews are enemies of the Faith can be justifiably accused of being crypto-Jews.
I do not reject the Church's teaching that Jews are the enemy of the Faith. I believe it in the sense that the Church meant it. I believe it is imprudent to says that Jews are the enemies of Catholics in situations in which it is likely to be misunderstood. This is a position that any traditional Catholic might hold. It is not evidence that I am a crypto-Jew.
No Jaynek, that is purely liberal, and that is not what the Church fathers taught. I suggest that you read what St. John Chrysostom said:
The ѕуηαgσgυєs of the Jews are the homes of idolatry and devils, even though they have no images in them [Sermon I:3; based on Jer. vii:11]. They are worse even than heathen circuses [Sermon I:3] The very idea of going from a church to a ѕуηαgσgυє is blasphemous [Sermon II:3]; and to attend the Jєωιѕн Passover is to insult Christ. To be with the Jews on the very day they murdered Jesus is to ensure that on the Day of Judgment He will say ' Depart from Me: for you have had intercourse with my murderers'.
-
Grow up.
It doesn't surprise me that someone who previously defended Vox after her obvious softness on gαys, and someone who defends profrane language, would also defend SD.
By the way, the man in your avatar was a Freemason and a CFR member.
-
I don't know what to tell you. I'm buddy-buddy with a lot of folks that I disagree with, some of them quite passionately so. I'm not going to go into details on any of the people you've mentioned because they aren't here (in this thread or on this forum) to speak for themselves, but I disagree with Jayne and Erin much, much more often than I agree with them.
I also spoke out against the treatment of Telesphorus on FE. I thought what happened there was shameful.
I suppose I can see why you'd find me shifty. Of course, I don't think I am that way. Diplomatic? Sure, but I don't think at the expense of speaking the truth in charity, whether that offends or not. I think that the way I post may give the illusion that I'm more moderate than I really am. I've become quite disillusioned recently with being needlessly inflammatory and sarcastic. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that on every trad fora around.
I personally find INP to be an inspiration in that regard. The guy doesn't lay down when it comes to doctrine by any stretch of the imagination, but you'll never catch him getting personal digs in just because someone disagrees with him. That's few and far between.
Some people mistake that for being light on the faith. I don't think that's a fair assessment in the slightest, but I suppose you can be the judge of that.
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff. I don't know what to tell you. You are one of them. You may be the oiliest person on any of these forums.
If you think what happened to Telesphorus is so shameful then why are you on such good terms with KK?
You're slithery.
Why hasn't Walty replied to this?
I'm really curious to know why such a thoughtful and reasonable guy such as he would be buddy-buddy with one of the ringleaders of what he considers a shameful episode on FE.
You're a moral fraud, Walty.
I publicly posted my opinion on the Tele thread on FE way back when. Maybe you don't associate with folks with whom you disagree. I do. They know where I stand on things and that I don't support those things which I disagree with.
Are you only friends with those with whom you hold no disagreements?
-
There are different levels of disagreement, and different subjects that can be disagreed upon.
No one thinks twice if a person whose favorite color is blue associates with someone whose favorite color is red, or if someone likes one sports team and the other persn likes a different one, or if someone has a devotion to St Bonaventure and another to St Thomas.
On the other hand, when traditional Catholics freely associate with those persons and policies which question, condescend, undermine and even assault traditional Catholic principles and values on a regular basis, that's gonna raise some eyebrows.
-
Jayne you started by saying that Catholics must not think of Jews as enemies, then after the St Paul shifted to saying they are our enemies in a very limited sense, but that we shouldn't say that out loud. I have to say it fits a neat pattern of attempting to diminish what Scripture says. You also support the emancipation of the Jews in the modern period, which is certainly at odds with the social kingship of Christ.
I do not want to diminish what Scripture says. I was trying to adjust my position to be more in line with Scripture. I really want to follow whatever Church teaching really is but I have heard a lot of conflicting ideas about it. After I converted to Catholicism it took me almost thirty years to find tradition. I have been exposed to huge amounts of bad teaching - especially on this topic - and it is very difficult for me to sort it all out. I greatly appreciate being corrected and taught what is right, at least the way that you do it. It is hard to learn anything from people who scold me and call me names.
I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. Could you explain please?
-
It is exactly what I said on that thread: see post (http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3452856.msg33785062.html#msg33785062)
I meant that you changed your tune on that thread, after realizing you had no other choice if you wanted to save face. Your earlier statements on that thread reveal a more accurate view of your mind.
Your "clarification" is problematic as well.
I'd also post some links to Sussccippee Domminne but I can't for some reason.
You were even given the opportunity to admit that being anti-Jєωιѕн has at least a part to play in being a good Catholic, but you would have none of that either.
"Being anti-Jєωιѕн is not an important part of Catholicism. It is a form of bigotry and Catholicism is much better off without it."
"Catholicism that is not anti-Jєωιѕн is not Catholicism. But at least you appear to be saying that it has a part."
"You have misunderstood me. Being anti-Jєωιѕн is not part of Catholicism at all. To try to add it to Catholicism is a form of syncretism."
It's good to know that Walty's looking out for you over on Fisheaters II:
Walty: People treat you poorly here, but stop worrying about it. You're giving them power when they have none. Do what you want. You have as much right to post there as anyone else.
Don't worry about anyone else; there's no need.
He's so thoughtful and reasonable.
-
Are you only friends with those with whom you hold no disagreements?
Of course not.
I'm not buddy-buddy with people who engage in shameful behavior without apology or who spread error.
-
"Being anti-Jєωιѕн is not an important part of Catholicism. It is a form of bigotry and Catholicism is much better off without it."
So I guess St. John Chrysostom was just a bigot, eh Jayne?
-
profrane language
I'm sorry, this should say "profane".
-
I don't know what to tell you. I'm buddy-buddy with a lot of folks that I disagree with, some of them quite passionately so. I'm not going to go into details on any of the people you've mentioned because they aren't here (in this thread or on this forum) to speak for themselves, but I disagree with Jayne and Erin much, much more often than I agree with them.
I also spoke out against the treatment of Telesphorus on FE. I thought what happened there was shameful.
I suppose I can see why you'd find me shifty. Of course, I don't think I am that way. Diplomatic? Sure, but I don't think at the expense of speaking the truth in charity, whether that offends or not. I think that the way I post may give the illusion that I'm more moderate than I really am. I've become quite disillusioned recently with being needlessly inflammatory and sarcastic. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that on every trad fora around.
I personally find INP to be an inspiration in that regard. The guy doesn't lay down when it comes to doctrine by any stretch of the imagination, but you'll never catch him getting personal digs in just because someone disagrees with him. That's few and far between.
Some people mistake that for being light on the faith. I don't think that's a fair assessment in the slightest, but I suppose you can be the judge of that.
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff. I don't know what to tell you. You are one of them. You may be the oiliest person on any of these forums.
If you think what happened to Telesphorus is so shameful then why are you on such good terms with KK?
You're slithery.
Why hasn't Walty replied to this?
I'm really curious to know why such a thoughtful and reasonable guy such as he would be buddy-buddy with one of the ringleaders of what he considers a shameful episode on FE.
You're a moral fraud, Walty.
I publicly posted my opinion on the Tele thread on FE way back when. Maybe you don't associate with folks with whom you disagree. I do. They know where I stand on things and that I don't support those things which I disagree with.
Are you only friends with those with whom you hold no disagreements?
What did you say? Please post it?
Let's not kid ourselves: KK and his buddies made Tele the butt of their jokes for many months after that thread. On the forum, on chat, one presumes elsewhere. And with tedious regularity. How did you respond to that?
It isn't merely a disagreement, it was shameful childish behavior carried on for months. It's one of the reasons I can't stand that guy nor most anyone friendly with him.
-
I meant that you changed your tune on that thread, after realizing you had no other choice if you wanted to save face. Your earlier statements on that thread reveal a more accurate view of your mind.
The later statements are the more accurate reflection of what I believe now, but I think you are right that I was being influenced by wanting to save face. Instead of just admitting that I was wrong, I tried to include my earlier statements.
You were even given the opportunity to admit that being anti-Jєωιѕн has at least a part to play in being a good Catholic, but you would have none of that either.
"Being anti-Jєωιѕн is not an important part of Catholicism. It is a form of bigotry and Catholicism is much better off without it."
"Catholicism that is not anti-Jєωιѕн is not Catholicism. But at least you appear to be saying that it has a part."
"You have misunderstood me. Being anti-Jєωιѕн is not part of Catholicism at all. To try to add it to Catholicism is a form of syncretism."
I react viscerally to the term "anti-Jєωιѕн". I was raised around people who used it to mean wanting to kill Jews. I did not do well in that thread and I would say things differently now.
It's good to know that Walty's looking out for you over on Fisheaters II:
Walty: People treat you poorly here, but stop worrying about it. You're giving them power when they have none. Do what you want. You have as much right to post there as anyone else.
Don't worry about anyone else; there's no need.
He's so thoughtful and reasonable.
He's a moderator. He's supposed to be thoughtful and reasonable. If there is a role for abrasive and unreasonable posters (which I am not sure there is) it is not being moderators.
-
Let's not kid ourselves: KK and his buddies made Tele the butt of their jokes for many months after that thread. On the forum, on chat, one presumes elsewhere. And with tedious regularity. How did you respond to that?
It isn't merely a disagreement, it was shameful childish behavior carried on for months. It's one of the reasons I can't stand that guy nor most anyone friendly with him.
Graham, it was years ago.
-
You continue to antagonize people on Fisheaters II like GottmitunsAlex who post articles about the Jews.
You haven't changed your ways.
-
What did you say? Please post it?
Let's not kid ourselves: KK and his buddies made Tele the butt of their jokes for many months after that thread. On the forum, on chat, one presumes elsewhere. And with tedious regularity. How did you respond to that?
It isn't merely a disagreement, it was shameful childish behavior carried on for months. It's one of the reasons I can't stand that guy nor most anyone friendly with him.
Hear, hear!
-
I'll lay out why SD is a FishEaters II. The real issue lies with most of the mods.
Only ONE is pro-Williamson. Here's a re-cap of their positions:
tmw89: sedevacantist, pro-Resistance
Bonaventure: sedevacantist, doesn't want a deal but seems to like +Fellay better
Kaesekopf: claims to like Bishop Williamson though is pro-Fellay
Walty/Louis IX: pro-Fellay
Penelope: pro-FSSP/Indult, may sympathize with SSPX somewhat
See the problem here? All but one is pro-Fellay or worse. And we've seen what happens when a forum is predominately pro-Fellay.
And that's just one issue. The fact that the admin has feministic views much in-line with FE and gives free passes to libs and even Protestants is what really messes up the forum.
-
You continue to antagonize people on Fisheaters II like GottmitunsAlex who post articles about the Jews.
You haven't changed your ways.
I deliberately posted something to antagonize him once but I was sorry afterwards and deleted it. I have been very careful since then to watch my attitude when dealing with him. Lately I have not interacted with him much at all.
-
I'll lay out why SD is a FishEaters II. The real issue lies with most of the mods.
Only ONE is pro-Williamson. Here's a re-cap of their positions:
tmw89: sedevacantist, pro-Resistance
Bonaventure: sedevacantist, doesn't want a deal but seems to like +Fellay better
Kaesekopf: claims to like Bishop Williamson though is pro-Fellay
Walty/Louis IX: pro-Fellay
Penelope: pro-FSSP/Indult, may sympathize with SSPX somewhat
See the problem here? All but one is pro-Fellay or worse. And we've seen what happens when a forum is predominately pro-Fellay.
And that's just one issue. The fact that the admin has feministic views much in-line with FE and gives free passes to libs and even Protestants is what really messes up the forum.
Good post. Isn't there a 6th mod over there?
-
I'll lay out why SD is a FishEaters II. The real issue lies with most of the mods.
Only ONE is pro-Williamson. Here's a re-cap of their positions:
tmw89: sedevacantist, pro-Resistance
Bonaventure: sedevacantist, doesn't want a deal but seems to like +Fellay better
Kaesekopf: claims to like Bishop Williamson though is pro-Fellay
Walty/Louis IX: pro-Fellay
Penelope: pro-FSSP/Indult, may sympathize with SSPX somewhat
See the problem here? All but one is pro-Fellay or worse. And we've seen what happens when a forum is predominately pro-Fellay.
And that's just one issue. The fact that the admin has feministic views much in-line with FE and gives free passes to libs and even Protestants is what really messes up the forum.
Good post. Isn't there a 6th mod over there?
No, I think there are just five.
-
There are different levels of disagreement, and different subjects that can be disagreed upon.
No one thinks twice if a person whose favorite color is blue associates with someone whose favorite color is red, or if someone likes one sports team and the other persn likes a different one, or if someone has a devotion to St Bonaventure and another to St Thomas.
On the other hand, when traditional Catholics freely associate with those persons and policies which question, condescend, undermine and even assault traditional Catholic principles and values on a regular basis, that's gonna raise some eyebrows.
You have no friends who are Novus Ordites? Lean toward Americanism? Like Fellay more than Williamson?
I find that hard to believe.
-
There are different levels of disagreement, and different subjects that can be disagreed upon.
No one thinks twice if a person whose favorite color is blue associates with someone whose favorite color is red, or if someone likes one sports team and the other persn likes a different one, or if someone has a devotion to St Bonaventure and another to St Thomas.
On the other hand, when traditional Catholics freely associate with those persons and policies which question, condescend, undermine and even assault traditional Catholic principles and values on a regular basis, that's gonna raise some eyebrows.
You have no friends who are Novus Ordites? Lean toward Americanism? Like Fellay more than Williamson?
I find that hard to believe.
Well, let's put it this way: The fact that a person is a Novus Ordite, a Fellay supporter or sentimental about American does not ipso facto make them a sworn enemy.
But, all of those things (and others) are threats to the faith. And when someone believes things that threaten the faith, it is wise not to be too familiar with them.
-
I don't know what to tell you. I'm buddy-buddy with a lot of folks that I disagree with, some of them quite passionately so. I'm not going to go into details on any of the people you've mentioned because they aren't here (in this thread or on this forum) to speak for themselves, but I disagree with Jayne and Erin much, much more often than I agree with them.
I also spoke out against the treatment of Telesphorus on FE. I thought what happened there was shameful.
I suppose I can see why you'd find me shifty. Of course, I don't think I am that way. Diplomatic? Sure, but I don't think at the expense of speaking the truth in charity, whether that offends or not. I think that the way I post may give the illusion that I'm more moderate than I really am. I've become quite disillusioned recently with being needlessly inflammatory and sarcastic. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that on every trad fora around.
I personally find INP to be an inspiration in that regard. The guy doesn't lay down when it comes to doctrine by any stretch of the imagination, but you'll never catch him getting personal digs in just because someone disagrees with him. That's few and far between.
Some people mistake that for being light on the faith. I don't think that's a fair assessment in the slightest, but I suppose you can be the judge of that.
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff. I don't know what to tell you. You are one of them. You may be the oiliest person on any of these forums.
If you think what happened to Telesphorus is so shameful then why are you on such good terms with KK?
You're slithery.
Why hasn't Walty replied to this?
I'm really curious to know why such a thoughtful and reasonable guy such as he would be buddy-buddy with one of the ringleaders of what he considers a shameful episode on FE.
You're a moral fraud, Walty.
I publicly posted my opinion on the Tele thread on FE way back when. Maybe you don't associate with folks with whom you disagree. I do. They know where I stand on things and that I don't support those things which I disagree with.
Are you only friends with those with whom you hold no disagreements?
What did you say? Please post it?
Let's not kid ourselves: KK and his buddies made Tele the butt of their jokes for many months after that thread. On the forum, on chat, one presumes elsewhere. And with tedious regularity. How did you respond to that?
It isn't merely a disagreement, it was shameful childish behavior carried on for months. It's one of the reasons I can't stand that guy nor most anyone friendly with him.
You're the one who is so concerned about it, not me. Go find it yourself if you care that much.
Let me state unequivocally... I do not support what happened on FE in regards to Tele. I think it was inquisitorial and had no place on a trad forum.
Those who thought differently know how I feel about the matter. You keep citing KK. I don't think he references this event often, nor were we anywhere near as close when that whole thing went down. I don't feel it necessary to continually talk about the matter because I disagreed with it when it was going down and was vocal about that.
I don't do a copious background search on people when I befriend them.
If you think I'm some sort of moral sleazeball then that's fine. You've made that point many times. I'm not here to post about myself but to post about the faith. If you've made up your mind about me then that's fine. I'll accept that. But it'd be nice if every time I posted here it didn't become about my personal life.
-
I'll lay out why SD is a FishEaters II. The real issue lies with most of the mods.
Only ONE is pro-Williamson. Here's a re-cap of their positions:
tmw89: sedevacantist, pro-Resistance
Bonaventure: sedevacantist, doesn't want a deal but seems to like +Fellay better
Kaesekopf: claims to like Bishop Williamson though is pro-Fellay
Walty/Louis IX: pro-Fellay
Penelope: pro-FSSP/Indult, may sympathize with SSPX somewhat
See the problem here? All but one is pro-Fellay or worse. And we've seen what happens when a forum is predominately pro-Fellay.
And that's just one issue. The fact that the admin has feministic views much in-line with FE and gives free passes to libs and even Protestants is what really messes up the forum.
What's funny is that this isn't totally incorrect, but it's certainly not correct either.
I don't think +Fellay sold out, but that doesn't mean I have any major issues with +Williamson. If you'd check my posting history on +Williamson threads you'd see that I greatly support him and almost always agree with him.
-
There are different levels of disagreement, and different subjects that can be disagreed upon.
No one thinks twice if a person whose favorite color is blue associates with someone whose favorite color is red, or if someone likes one sports team and the other persn likes a different one, or if someone has a devotion to St Bonaventure and another to St Thomas.
On the other hand, when traditional Catholics freely associate with those persons and policies which question, condescend, undermine and even assault traditional Catholic principles and values on a regular basis, that's gonna raise some eyebrows.
You have no friends who are Novus Ordites? Lean toward Americanism? Like Fellay more than Williamson?
I find that hard to believe.
Well, let's put it this way: The fact that a person is a Novus Ordite, a Fellay supporter or sentimental about American does not ipso facto make them a sworn enemy.
But, all of those things (and others) are threats to the faith. And when someone believes things that threaten the faith, it is wise not to be too familiar with them.
So you're not "too familiar" with anyone who is wrong about something important?
-
I'll lay out why SD is a FishEaters II. The real issue lies with most of the mods.
Only ONE is pro-Williamson. Here's a re-cap of their positions:
tmw89: sedevacantist, pro-Resistance
Bonaventure: sedevacantist, doesn't want a deal but seems to like +Fellay better
Kaesekopf: claims to like Bishop Williamson though is pro-Fellay
Walty/Louis IX: pro-Fellay
Penelope: pro-FSSP/Indult, may sympathize with SSPX somewhat
See the problem here? All but one is pro-Fellay or worse. And we've seen what happens when a forum is predominately pro-Fellay.
And that's just one issue. The fact that the admin has feministic views much in-line with FE and gives free passes to libs and even Protestants is what really messes up the forum.
What's funny is that this isn't totally incorrect, but it's certainly not correct either.
I don't think +Fellay sold out, but that doesn't mean I have any major issues with +Williamson. If you'd check my posting history on +Williamson threads you'd see that I greatly support him and almost always agree with him.
I didn't say you had major issues with +Williamson. Not all those who support Bishop Fellay consider themselves enemies of +Williamson.
"Pro-Fellay" means someone who supports him, not necessarily someone who hates the Resistance.
Walty, don't get me wrong. I think you are a really nice guy, my only point was that it's really important to have moderators who are pro-Resistance. Why? Look at other forums run by Fellayites, and you'll understand.
-
By the way, you said my analysis of the five moderators wasn't totally correct. Where else was I off the mark, in your opinion?
-
I said exactly what I meant. It is wise to not be too familiar with those who threaten the faith.
-
I'll lay out why SD is a FishEaters II. The real issue lies with most of the mods.
Only ONE is pro-Williamson. Here's a re-cap of their positions:
tmw89: sedevacantist, pro-Resistance
Bonaventure: sedevacantist, doesn't want a deal but seems to like +Fellay better
Kaesekopf: claims to like Bishop Williamson though is pro-Fellay
Walty/Louis IX: pro-Fellay
Penelope: pro-FSSP/Indult, may sympathize with SSPX somewhat
See the problem here? All but one is pro-Fellay or worse. And we've seen what happens when a forum is predominately pro-Fellay.
And that's just one issue. The fact that the admin has feministic views much in-line with FE and gives free passes to libs and even Protestants is what really messes up the forum.
What's funny is that this isn't totally incorrect, but it's certainly not correct either.
I don't think +Fellay sold out, but that doesn't mean I have any major issues with +Williamson. If you'd check my posting history on +Williamson threads you'd see that I greatly support him and almost always agree with him.
I didn't say you had major issues with +Williamson. Not all those who support Bishop Fellay consider themselves enemies of +Williamson.
"Pro-Fellay" means someone who supports him, not necessarily someone who hates the Resistance.
Walty, don't get me wrong. I think you are a really nice guy, my only point was that it's really important to have moderators who are pro-Resistance. Why? Look at other forums run by Fellayites, and you'll understand.
SD's forum stance is that of the SSPX. It has not yet taken any stance on the issue of the Resistance, nor does it shun those who support it.
It seems that not being anti-Fellay means that we're anti-Williamson, when you've just admitted that the reverse dichotomy isn't necessary.
-
SD's forum stance is that of the SSPX.
I know. Pro-Fellay.
It has not yet taken any stance on the issue of the Resistance, nor does it shun those who support it.
This is true to an extent, but it's obvious that KK doesn't care too much for the Resistance.
It seems that not being anti-Fellay means that we're anti-Williamson, when you've just admitted that the reverse dichotomy isn't necessary.
That isn't what I said. I said that having pro-Williamson moderators is important for any Trad forum.
-
By the way, you said my analysis of the five moderators wasn't totally correct. Where else was I off the mark, in your opinion?
I don't want to speak too much for anyone else so they should come here and correct me if I'm wrong.
I think everyone supports at least some of what +Williamson says and does. TMW is a sedevacantist so I don't think he cares very much about the Resistance, nor is he any more supportive than someone like myself, or even Bonaventure.
Bonaventure, if I remember correctly, was pretty anti-deal. I think Penelope is a lot more sympathetic to the stances of the Society than you've stated here.
-
SSS: In my estimation, one who is 'pro Fellay' isn't someone who is pro the man (just as those of us supporting the Resistance do not do so because we are opposed to the man) but those who welcome a union with modernists. That's probably what you meant anyways, just wanted to clarify so that someone reading wouldn't begin to work on the erroneous assumption that the problems in the Society or the Church are problems of personality.
Ditto with internet forums. None of us are anti-SD or anti-FE because we have a personality conflict with Vox or KK or any of the mods, even if we do. It all goes back to traditional Catholic doctrine, which meets it's greatest foes in liberalism and modernism, which both forums cultivate and promote.
Similarly, one who is pro-Williamson is not pro-Williamson for the sake of the man (although, how can one help but love him?) but for the sake of his doctrine, and that he stands up for the truth unequivocally.
-
That isn't what I said. I said that having pro-Williamson moderators is important for any Trad forum.
Well, we have those.
-
TMW is a sedevacantist so I don't think he cares very much about the Resistance
I know for a fact that this isn't true. He likes Bishop Williamson and the Resistance.
I think Penelope is a lot more sympathetic to the stances of the Society than you've stated here.
I recall her saying on Council of Trent forums that she believed what the Church said that attending an NO on Christmas Eve counts as attending on Christmas Day. That's an Indult mindset.
-
SSS: In my estimation, one who is 'pro Fellay' isn't someone who is pro the man (just as those of us supporting the Resistance do not do so because we are opposed to the man) but those who welcome a union with modernists. That's probably what you meant anyways, just wanted to clarify so that someone reading wouldn't begin to work on the erroneous assumption that the problems in the Society or the Church are problems of personality.
Yes, thank you for clarifying that.
There's more to the problems in the Society than just Bishop Fellay, correct.
-
SSS: In my estimation, one who is 'pro Fellay' isn't someone who is pro the man (just as those of us supporting the Resistance do not do so because we are opposed to the man) but those who welcome a union with modernists. That's probably what you meant anyways, just wanted to clarify so that someone reading wouldn't begin to work on the erroneous assumption that the problems in the Society or the Church are problems of personality.
Ditto with internet forums. None of us are anti-SD or anti-FE because we have a personality conflict with Vox or KK or any of the mods, even if we do. It all goes back to traditional Catholic doctrine, which meets it's greatest foes in liberalism and modernism, which both forums cultivate and promote.
Who wants a deal with Modernists? I certainly don't. I'm very relieved that no deal was accepted and constantly cautioned against one. Barring a miracle, there's o way Rome would have done anything but subverted the Society.
-
TMW is a sedevacantist so I don't think he cares very much about the Resistance
I know for a fact that this isn't true.
I think Penelope is a lot more sympathetic to the stances of the Society than you've stated here.
I recall her saying on Council of Trent forums that she believed what the Church said that attending an NO on Christmas Eve counts as attending on Christmas Day. That's an Indult mindset.
That forum hasn't existed for awhile and I believe she's changed a bit since it has.
-
There are different levels of disagreement, and different subjects that can be disagreed upon.
No one thinks twice if a person whose favorite color is blue associates with someone whose favorite color is red, or if someone likes one sports team and the other persn likes a different one, or if someone has a devotion to St Bonaventure and another to St Thomas.
On the other hand, when traditional Catholics freely associate with those persons and policies which question, condescend, undermine and even assault traditional Catholic principles and values on a regular basis, that's gonna raise some eyebrows.
You have no friends who are Novus Ordites? Lean toward Americanism? Like Fellay more than Williamson?
I find that hard to believe.
Well, let's put it this way: The fact that a person is a Novus Ordite, a Fellay supporter or sentimental about American does not ipso facto make them a sworn enemy.
But, all of those things (and others) are threats to the faith. And when someone believes things that threaten the faith, it is wise not to be too familiar with them.
Very well said.
-
Let's not kid ourselves: KK and his buddies made Tele the butt of their jokes for many months after that thread. On the forum, on chat, one presumes elsewhere. And with tedious regularity. How did you respond to that?
It isn't merely a disagreement, it was shameful childish behavior carried on for months. It's one of the reasons I can't stand that guy nor most anyone friendly with him.
Graham, it was years ago.
Him and his gang were dragging Joe's name through the mud less than 18 months ago on FE chat. Last I know of.
What's your point.
The man hasn't changed his colours. And Joe still deserves a public apology.
-
Let's not kid ourselves: KK and his buddies made Tele the butt of their jokes for many months after that thread. On the forum, on chat, one presumes elsewhere. And with tedious regularity. How did you respond to that?
It isn't merely a disagreement, it was shameful childish behavior carried on for months. It's one of the reasons I can't stand that guy nor most anyone friendly with him.
Graham, it was years ago.
Him and his gang were dragging Joe's name through the mud less than 18 months ago on FE chat. Last I know of.
What's your point.
The man hasn't changed his colours. And Joe still deserves a public apology.
I am torn. I disagreed with the way that Tele was treated and would love to see him get an apology. On the other hand, I consider myself indebted to KK for allowing me on his forum against the advice and wishes of others. He has been very gracious to me. I cannot in good conscience criticize him, at least not here, publicly and behind his back.
-
I don't know what to tell you. I'm buddy-buddy with a lot of folks that I disagree with, some of them quite passionately so. I'm not going to go into details on any of the people you've mentioned because they aren't here (in this thread or on this forum) to speak for themselves, but I disagree with Jayne and Erin much, much more often than I agree with them.
I also spoke out against the treatment of Telesphorus on FE. I thought what happened there was shameful.
I suppose I can see why you'd find me shifty. Of course, I don't think I am that way. Diplomatic? Sure, but I don't think at the expense of speaking the truth in charity, whether that offends or not. I think that the way I post may give the illusion that I'm more moderate than I really am. I've become quite disillusioned recently with being needlessly inflammatory and sarcastic. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that on every trad fora around.
I personally find INP to be an inspiration in that regard. The guy doesn't lay down when it comes to doctrine by any stretch of the imagination, but you'll never catch him getting personal digs in just because someone disagrees with him. That's few and far between.
Some people mistake that for being light on the faith. I don't think that's a fair assessment in the slightest, but I suppose you can be the judge of that.
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff. I don't know what to tell you. You are one of them. You may be the oiliest person on any of these forums.
If you think what happened to Telesphorus is so shameful then why are you on such good terms with KK?
You're slithery.
Why hasn't Walty replied to this?
I'm really curious to know why such a thoughtful and reasonable guy such as he would be buddy-buddy with one of the ringleaders of what he considers a shameful episode on FE.
You're a moral fraud, Walty.
I publicly posted my opinion on the Tele thread on FE way back when. Maybe you don't associate with folks with whom you disagree. I do. They know where I stand on things and that I don't support those things which I disagree with.
Are you only friends with those with whom you hold no disagreements?
What did you say? Please post it?
Let's not kid ourselves: KK and his buddies made Tele the butt of their jokes for many months after that thread. On the forum, on chat, one presumes elsewhere. And with tedious regularity. How did you respond to that?
It isn't merely a disagreement, it was shameful childish behavior carried on for months. It's one of the reasons I can't stand that guy nor most anyone friendly with him.
You're the one who is so concerned about it, not me. Go find it yourself if you care that much.
Let me state unequivocally... I do not support what happened on FE in regards to Tele. I think it was inquisitorial and had no place on a trad forum.
Those who thought differently know how I feel about the matter. You keep citing KK. I don't think he references this event often, nor were we anywhere near as close when that whole thing went down. I don't feel it necessary to continually talk about the matter because I disagreed with it when it was going down and was vocal about that.
I don't do a copious background search on people when I befriend them.
If you think I'm some sort of moral sleazeball then that's fine. You've made that point many times. I'm not here to post about myself but to post about the faith. If you've made up your mind about me then that's fine. I'll accept that. But it'd be nice if every time I posted here it didn't become about my personal life.
I think you think you're responding to me here.
You never rebuked anyone on that thread: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3442230.0.html
Maybe on some other thread. I'm sure it was very thoughtful and reasonable.
-
I don't know what to tell you. I'm buddy-buddy with a lot of folks that I disagree with, some of them quite passionately so. I'm not going to go into details on any of the people you've mentioned because they aren't here (in this thread or on this forum) to speak for themselves, but I disagree with Jayne and Erin much, much more often than I agree with them.
I also spoke out against the treatment of Telesphorus on FE. I thought what happened there was shameful.
I suppose I can see why you'd find me shifty. Of course, I don't think I am that way. Diplomatic? Sure, but I don't think at the expense of speaking the truth in charity, whether that offends or not. I think that the way I post may give the illusion that I'm more moderate than I really am. I've become quite disillusioned recently with being needlessly inflammatory and sarcastic. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that on every trad fora around.
I personally find INP to be an inspiration in that regard. The guy doesn't lay down when it comes to doctrine by any stretch of the imagination, but you'll never catch him getting personal digs in just because someone disagrees with him. That's few and far between.
Some people mistake that for being light on the faith. I don't think that's a fair assessment in the slightest, but I suppose you can be the judge of that.
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff. I don't know what to tell you. You are one of them. You may be the oiliest person on any of these forums.
If you think what happened to Telesphorus is so shameful then why are you on such good terms with KK?
You're slithery.
Why hasn't Walty replied to this?
I'm really curious to know why such a thoughtful and reasonable guy such as he would be buddy-buddy with one of the ringleaders of what he considers a shameful episode on FE.
You're a moral fraud, Walty.
I publicly posted my opinion on the Tele thread on FE way back when. Maybe you don't associate with folks with whom you disagree. I do. They know where I stand on things and that I don't support those things which I disagree with.
Are you only friends with those with whom you hold no disagreements?
What did you say? Please post it?
Let's not kid ourselves: KK and his buddies made Tele the butt of their jokes for many months after that thread. On the forum, on chat, one presumes elsewhere. And with tedious regularity. How did you respond to that?
It isn't merely a disagreement, it was shameful childish behavior carried on for months. It's one of the reasons I can't stand that guy nor most anyone friendly with him.
You're the one who is so concerned about it, not me. Go find it yourself if you care that much.
Let me state unequivocally... I do not support what happened on FE in regards to Tele. I think it was inquisitorial and had no place on a trad forum.
Those who thought differently know how I feel about the matter. You keep citing KK. I don't think he references this event often, nor were we anywhere near as close when that whole thing went down. I don't feel it necessary to continually talk about the matter because I disagreed with it when it was going down and was vocal about that.
I don't do a copious background search on people when I befriend them.
If you think I'm some sort of moral sleazeball then that's fine. You've made that point many times. I'm not here to post about myself but to post about the faith. If you've made up your mind about me then that's fine. I'll accept that. But it'd be nice if every time I posted here it didn't become about my personal life.
I think you think you're responding to me here.
You never rebuked anyone on that thread: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3442230.0.html
Maybe on some other thread. I'm sure it was very thoughtful and reasonable.
On the Tele thread? I posted this:
I don't have the time to read through this entire sh** storm so I may have this wrong, but it appears as though people started bringing up a private matter regarding Telemaque when he started giving opinions about marriage which they disagreed with. That's a classic ad hominem attack and has no place among Christians. Argue against the guy's opinion like a civilized adult; don't just start flinging mud.
It doesn't matter whether Telemaque is a pervert or not. No one here is his spiritual advisor or confessor. At the same time, it doesn't matter if everyone is attacking Telemque, it doesn't give him license to respond in the same manner.
I'm definitely one of the people here who thinks that, generally, people should be allowed to duke things out, but there's a line to be drawn and it appears we sped past [sic] that long ago.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3440085.msg33503051.html#msg33503051
-
And this:
No one is defending creeps, just the idea that justice isn't to be doled out by people on an internet forum. Let the people have authority over this deal with it. You have nothing to do with it.
And this:
You just admitted that your intention is to ride him as some sort of justice for him supposedly being a creeper. This is a Catholic forum, it's not a platform for rogue traddy gangs to break a guy's legs.
This whole thing makes FE look terrible.
And this:
This isn't a thread about Telemaque trying to find a spouse, however. This stuff about him was brought up because, as UD said, "...it discredits him".
So I don't know who people think they're protecting from Telemaque. He isn't causing any immediate danger to anyone on this forum. Report him to Quis and let him deal with the forum's protection. After that, let the proper authorities deal with him. You have no jurisdiction to be the one to "ride" his every post for some sort of justice.
-
With defense like that, you don't need enemies.
Listen Hatchc,
We all know what these FE types are like.
There's no need to confront them, it won't change a thing.
They are malicious, nasty people who make a joke of the Faith.
They are subversives.
Those people stayed for years as all the legitimate trads were purged.
-
Yep, very thoughtful and reasonable! :laugh1:
I like how you slither your way into the middle as the sole voice of reason, Walty.
You should have sided with Telesphorus. But then you'd lose popularity.
-
With defense like that, you don't need enemies.
Listen Hatchc,
We all know what these FE types are like.
There's no need to confront them, it won't change a thing.
They are malicious, nasty people who make a joke of the Faith.
They are subversives.
Those people stayed for years as all the legitimate trads were purged.
Subversives is right! They're also airheads.
-
I just read some of that mess of a thread.
It was lolanthe who first called Tele a "pervert", then CollegeCatholic (Kaesekopf) chimed in and agreed.
Now I understand why Tele got into such a battle with lolanthe and erin is (not) nice here on CI almost two years ago. Those two are feminists and give Traditional Catholicism a bad name.
-
Yep, very thoughtful and reasonable! :laugh1:
I like how you slither your way into the middle as the sole voice of reason, Walty.
You should have sided with Telesphorus. But then you'd lose popularity.
It has nothing to do with popularity. If I'd been going for that would I have disagreed with 90% of the people on that thread?
You guys just draw your own conclusions and then paint the facts into whatever corner you like.
I did side with Tele until he started calling people "bitches" at which point I told him he was sticking his foot in his mouth and doing himself no favors.
-
The SD sigma sigma pi chi fraternity just wants to keep the homos out of Vox's Phi sigma sigma pi coed-sorority.
-
I just read some of that mess of a thread.
It was lolanthe who first called Tele a "pervert", then CollegeCatholic (Kaesekopf) chimed in and agreed.
Now I understand why Tele got into such a battle with lolanthe and erin is (not) nice here on CI almost two years ago. Those two are feminists and give Traditional Catholicism a bad name.
Speaking of erinsinice, why doesn't Walty find it problematic that an admitted feminist is tolerated on his forum? Kaesekopf has the biggest crush, I don't think I'm revealing any big secret. It's not like she's new, and should be given some breathing room so that she can learn that she's wrong about some things. She's been on these forums for years entertaining us with her one-liners and feminist BS. If she was going to change her stripes she already would have.
-
I react viscerally to the term "anti-Jєωιѕн". I was raised around people who used it to mean wanting to kill Jews. I did not do well in that thread and I would say things differently now.
What if I say "anti-judaic"?
Does that clear things up?
The word "jew" can be loaded with meanings, and I think that leads to lots of confusion in these times.
-
I just read some of that mess of a thread.
It was lolanthe who first called Tele a "pervert", then CollegeCatholic (Kaesekopf) chimed in and agreed.
Now I understand why Tele got into such a battle with lolanthe and erin is (not) nice here on CI almost two years ago. Those two are feminists and give Traditional Catholicism a bad name.
Speaking of erinsinice, why doesn't Walty find it problematic that an admitted feminist is tolerated on his forum? Kaesekopf has the biggest crush, I don't think I'm revealing any big secret. It's not like she's new, and should be given some breathing room so that she can learn that she's wrong about some things. She's been on these forums for years entertaining us with her one-liners and feminist BS. If she was going to change her stripes she already would have.
Kaesekopf is her biggest fan (I think you even pointed that out there).
She's the same one who apparently believes in "mutual submission", that the husband isn't the head of the household.
She also posted on Council of Trent forums from time to time.
I don't think there's a bigger feminist on "Trad" forums than her.
-
The SD sigma sigma pi chi fraternity just wants to keep the homos out of Vox's Phi sigma sigma pi coed-sorority.
And in the mind of many, this makes it quite 'traditional.'
"SD would never tolerate transsɛҳuąƖism!"
-
I don't think there's a bigger feminist on "Trad" forums than her.
Well, except for maybe VoxClamantis.
-
I just read some of that mess of a thread.
It was lolanthe who first called Tele a "pervert", then CollegeCatholic (Kaesekopf) chimed in and agreed.
Now I understand why Tele got into such a battle with lolanthe and erin is (not) nice here on CI almost two years ago. Those two are feminists and give Traditional Catholicism a bad name.
Speaking of erinsinice, why doesn't Walty find it problematic that an admitted feminist is tolerated on his forum? Kaesekopf has the biggest crush, I don't think I'm revealing any big secret. It's not like she's new, and should be given some breathing room so that she can learn that she's wrong about some things. She's been on these forums for years entertaining us with her one-liners and feminist BS. If she was going to change her stripes she already would have.
Kaesekopf is her biggest fan (I think you even pointed that out there).
She's the same one who apparently believes in "mutual submission", that the husband isn't the head of the household.
She also posted on Council of Trent forums from time to time.
I don't think there's a bigger feminist on "Trad" forums than her.
She posted a flurry of ridiculous 'rights' that feminism is necessary for, just recently.
She doesn't even keep it a secret.
It is a scandal that she is allowed to spread those ideas on any forum, even worse that she does it with the blessing of the administration, not a peep from the moderation. Her 'mission' has the blessing and protection of the administration.
-
The word "jew" can be loaded with meanings, and I think that leads to lots of confusion in these times.
That was a point that I was making. That it is really easy to be misunderstood on this topic so we should try to be as clear as possible.
But it is a "hot button" for me because of my background, so I need to be extra careful about getting carried away.
-
Mith, I'm curious as to why you're posting on SD that it's ok to say grace with Protestants all the while you're saying here that we shouldn't be too close to heretics.
That seems inconsistent.
-
I also don't understand why all of this dirt is being brought up from years ago against a few of us. It's not like Mith didn't post things on FE a few years ago that Ben/Hatch/Guitarplucker and SSS wouldn't find Modernist and feminist.
And yet there's silence on that.
-
I also don't understand why all of this dirt is being brought up from years ago against a few of us. It's not like Mith didn't post things on FE a few years ago that Ben/Hatch/Guitarplucker and SSS wouldn't find Modernist and feminist.
And yet there's silence on that.
Did you read what Mith wrote?
He said he wasn't Traditional when he first joined FE but he's changed.
-
I also don't understand why all of this dirt is being brought up from years ago against a few of us. It's not like Mith didn't post things on FE a few years ago that Ben/Hatch/Guitarplucker and SSS wouldn't find Modernist and feminist.
And yet there's silence on that.
Did you read what Mith wrote?
He said he wasn't Traditional when he first joined FE but he's changed.
I've said the same thing numerous times and yet you keep bringing up what I've said on FE years ago, what Penelope said on FE years ago, etc.
I don't even post on FE anymore and haven't for months yet we're still talking about it.
-
I also don't understand why all of this dirt is being brought up from years ago against a few of us. It's not like Mith didn't post things on FE a few years ago that Ben/Hatch/Guitarplucker and SSS wouldn't find Modernist and feminist.
And yet there's silence on that.
Did you read what Mith wrote?
He said he wasn't Traditional when he first joined FE but he's changed.
I've said the same thing numerous times and yet you keep bringing up what I've said on FE years ago, what Penelope said on FE years ago, etc.
I don't even post on FE anymore and haven't for months yet we're still talking about it.
I haven't said anything about your posts on FE. I just said that you're a supporter of Bishop Fellay.
-
I guess I should have aimed that more at Ben/Hatch/Guitarplucker. My apologies.
-
Mith, I'm curious as to why you're posting on SD that it's ok to say grace with Protestants all the while you're saying here that we shouldn't be too close to heretics.
That seems inconsistent.
http://www.s.com/forum/index.php?topic=2561.0
Quote what I said that is a problem.
-
I also don't understand why all of this dirt is being brought up from years ago against a few of us. It's not like Mith didn't post things on FE a few years ago that Ben/Hatch/Guitarplucker and SSS wouldn't find Modernist and feminist.
And yet there's silence on that.
Did you read what Mith wrote?
He said he wasn't Traditional when he first joined FE but he's changed.
I've also made several threads recanting any and all error for the shameful things I've said. Here, and on FE.
I have my signatures ending with a blanket condemnation of any and all liberalism (etc.) that I've held to.
I have a lot to be ashamed of.
-
Mith, I'm curious as to why you're posting on SD that it's ok to say grace with Protestants all the while you're saying here that we shouldn't be too close to heretics.
That seems inconsistent.
http://www.s.com/forum/index.php?topic=2561.0
Quote what I said that is a problem.
I'm not saying it's problematic, but it seems inconsistent. I'm supposed to rebuke KK publicly and cut off ties with him because he mistreated Tele but it's no big deal to be friends, dine, and pray with Protestants.
If they outnumber us, and we are their guests, we make the sign of the cross as they begin and say a Catholic blessing silently.
Isn't that being silent to error? What if they got the idea that you were praying with them because of your silence?
I've told KK I disagree with things he does to his face but that's not good enough and yet the above is ok?
-
I've also made several threads recanting any and all error for the shameful things I've said. Here, and on FE.
I have my signatures ending with a blanket condemnation of any and all liberalism (etc.) that I've held to.
I have a lot to be ashamed of.
Is that why your tone seems so harsh sometimes? Is it because you are ashamed and angry with yourself for what you did in the past?
-
I also don't understand why all of this dirt is being brought up from years ago against a few of us. It's not like Mith didn't post things on FE a few years ago that Ben/Hatch/Guitarplucker and SSS wouldn't find Modernist and feminist.
And yet there's silence on that.
It seems he's changing his mind about a lot. You don't exhibit those tendencies.
And you didn't address the erinisnice question.
And yes I was guitarplucker. I have personal reasons for not using the same account again. And since I didn't form any personal relationships or pms with anyone under that account I don't feel all that bad about it. If Matthew bans me for breaking a rule then so be it. I've actually been here before guitarplucker, too. I don't feel bad about that either.
erinisnice has had multiple accounts here. You should answer my question about her.
-
I also don't understand why all of this dirt is being brought up from years ago against a few of us. It's not like Mith didn't post things on FE a few years ago that Ben/Hatch/Guitarplucker and SSS wouldn't find Modernist and feminist.
And yet there's silence on that.
Because it's still relevant. You've got the same stripes.
-
I also don't understand why all of this dirt is being brought up from years ago against a few of us. It's not like Mith didn't post things on FE a few years ago that Ben/Hatch/Guitarplucker and SSS wouldn't find Modernist and feminist.
And yet there's silence on that.
It seems he's changing his mind about a lot. You don't exhibit those tendencies.
And you didn't address the erinisnice question.
And yes I was guitarplucker. I have personal reasons for not using the same account again. And since I didn't form any personal relationships or pms with anyone under that account I don't feel all that bad about it. If Matthew bans me for breaking a rule then so be it. I've actually been here before guitarplucker, too. I don't feel bad about that either.
erinisnice has had multiple accounts here. You should answer my question about her.
What's your question about her? I think she says things which are not Catholic in any way and I think she often posts in totally uncharitable ways.
She knows I think this. I disagree with her publicly. If you want me to say more than that (aka, take pot shots at her personally) I won't do it. I don't dislike her at all, and I don't think she deserves to be treated as if I do.
Disagreements don't have to be personal. I've disagreed with many different posters over the years and few of those disagreements have fostered any actual ill feelings, at least not on my end.
-
Speaking of erinsinice, why doesn't Walty find it problematic that an admitted feminist is tolerated on his forum? Kaesekopf has the biggest crush, I don't think I'm revealing any big secret. It's not like she's new, and should be given some breathing room so that she can learn that she's wrong about some things. She's been on these forums for years entertaining us with her one-liners and feminist BS. If she was going to change her stripes she already would have.
-
I also think that it's deceptive to use multiple accounts, especially if it is against forum rules.
Why grill me about being deceptive and sleazy all the while you're being dishonest yourself? Why use different accounts? Why can't you say everything you want to say as yourself?
-
Personal reasons. But not to be devious. As long as Matthew doesn't see me posting error I hope he will let me stay.
You still haven't addressed why you don't object to erinisnice posting over there. She does spread error.
You like her and therefore you really don't mind her feminist BS.
-
Personal reasons. But not to be devious. As long as Matthew doesn't see me posting error I hope he will let me stay.
You still haven't addressed why you don't object to erinisnice posting over there. She does spread error.
You like her and therefore you really don't mind her feminist BS.
I greatly mind when she posts erroneous things. And I challenge her when I see her doing so. I speak up when she breaks forum rules, and she's been temporarily banned before for doing so.
It's not about liking or disliking anyone. I don't know Erin well enough to speak to that. It's about the content of what one posts, much of which I disagree with when it comes to Erin.
-
I'm not saying it's problematic, but it seems inconsistent. I'm supposed to rebuke KK publicly and cut off ties with him because he mistreated Tele but it's no big deal to be friends, dine, and pray with Protestants.
Catholics are supposed to stand up for the Truth. No need to personalize it.
As to being 'friends with' dining' and 'praying' with protestants, that is just a gross mischaracterization of what I've said, so gross and so misconstrued that it sounds imaginary. The question was asked, when you're eating with protestants, do you pray with them. I said that I don't, and I then said what I do.
In case you were wondering, the only time I'm ever around protestants in that context is when I'm with in-laws.
Isn't that being silent to error? What if they got the idea that you were praying with them because of your silence?
Trust me, it would be very difficult for them to get that idea.
I've told KK I disagree with things he does to his face but that's not good enough and yet the above is ok?
As I said, 'the above' is imaginary.
-
I've also made several threads recanting any and all error for the shameful things I've said. Here, and on FE.
I have my signatures ending with a blanket condemnation of any and all liberalism (etc.) that I've held to.
I have a lot to be ashamed of.
Is that why your tone seems so harsh sometimes? Is it because you are ashamed and angry with yourself for what you did in the past?
That's it Freud. And when I was five, I didn't get a power ranger action figure that I really wanted. Messed me up big time.
-
Personal reasons. But not to be devious. As long as Matthew doesn't see me posting error I hope he will let me stay.
You still haven't addressed why you don't object to erinisnice posting over there. She does spread error.
You like her and therefore you really don't mind her feminist BS.
I greatly mind when she posts erroneous things. And I challenge her when I see her doing so. I speak up when she breaks forum rules, and she's been temporarily banned before for doing so.
It's not about liking or disliking anyone. I don't know Erin well enough to speak to that. It's about the content of what one posts, much of which I disagree with when it comes to Erin.
Yeah but why is she even on the forum at all? You've seen her posting feminist claptrap for years. It's not like she exhibits any signs of changing her tune.
Face it, you are not bothered by her. That's the mystery. If you had a Catholic mind you would be bothered by her. Enough to want to permanently ban her.
You don't add up.
-
I've also made several threads recanting any and all error for the shameful things I've said. Here, and on FE.
I have my signatures ending with a blanket condemnation of any and all liberalism (etc.) that I've held to.
I have a lot to be ashamed of.
Is that why your tone seems so harsh sometimes? Is it because you are ashamed and angry with yourself for what you did in the past?
That's it Freud. And when I was five, I didn't get a power ranger action figure that I really wanted. Messed me up big time.
You seem offended by my question which was not my intention. I am sorry.
I often find myself agreeing with what you say but being bothered by the tone. I was trying to understand where it was coming from so I could cope with it better. I understand being ashamed of past mistakes so that is something that would make a lot of sense for me.
-
You don't add up.
Has she posted anything recently that merits a ban? If so, those on SD should report it and it'll be dealt with.
-
You don't add up.
Has she posted anything recently that merits a ban? If so, those on SD should report it and it'll be dealt with.
Report? That's a laugh.
Yes, she has been reported. Many, many times.
Even if she hadn't been, where Erin is, KK is not far. He is fully aware, and usually fully enabling and complicit in it.
Understanding that the mods have no power except that which is given them, even if a mod wanted to do the right thing and get her out of there and lock the gate behind her and toss a couple of fire breathing gargoyles onto the fence, he or she couldn't.
Of course, that supposes that the mod actually sees a problem or cares that there is a problem-- and so far, there is very little convincing evidence that that is the case.
-
You don't add up.
Has she posted anything recently that merits a ban? If so, those on SD should report it and it'll be dealt with.
C'mon, this is ridiculous. Just go over to SD and read through her archive. And don't be surprised the next time she spews feminist crap.
-
"I'm sure Walty gets the idea -- time to move on."
"I'm sure JayneK gets the idea -- time to move on."
I've thumbed you guys down so much I've run out of thumbs.
-
The whole 'report it and it will be dealt with' is a ruse.
There was a thread where I showed several videos that she posted that were all so far from having a modicuм of decency. One, written from the perspective of a woman 'on her back' one which sɛҳuąƖized crucifixion, and another about cocaine use.
What was the Admin's response to this? I was a 'creeper' for going through her posting history. Of course, the only reason I linked to those disgusting posts is that I was asked for evidence to support my claims against her. Classic shooting the messenger. In the face of horrendous antiCatholic filth on 'his' site, he shifts the focus to demonize the person who brings it to the forum's attention.
A month later, the videos were removed-- by a moderator, who had to ask permission to remove them.
To fall back on the 'it wasn't reported' is disingenuous. I suppose if a mod or the Admin comes across a thread with links to porn sites, they wait for it to be reported. Ridiculous.
This is just a bullet point on a very long list.
Of course, it's not like I haven't said any of this before...
-
"I'm sure Walty gets the idea -- time to move on."
"I'm sure JayneK gets the idea -- time to move on."
I've thumbed you guys down so much I've run out of thumbs.
Don't you have other things in real life to do?
-
"I'm sure Walty gets the idea -- time to move on."
"I'm sure JayneK gets the idea -- time to move on."
I've thumbed you guys down so much I've run out of thumbs.
Don't you have other things in real life to do?
What could be better than this?
Look, Laramie, it's apparent you have a problem with what I've posted in this thread. Why not get that brain working and cut to the chase?
-
"I'm sure Walty gets the idea -- time to move on."
"I'm sure JayneK gets the idea -- time to move on."
I've thumbed you guys down so much I've run out of thumbs.
Don't you have other things in real life to do?
What could be better than this?
Look, Laramie, it's apparent you have a problem with what I've posted in this thread. Why not get that brain working and cut to the chase?
You just seem worked up, is all.
-
Not at all. I'm as calm as can be. :cheers:
-
Hatch and I should get a few beers and sort it out. Nothing a little bit o alcohol can't fix.
-
Yes, Mith is absolutely right. The "report it" argument is a despicable excuse for pure laziness.
KK used that line to me on here when I was talking about how Vetus was allowed to post Protestant heresy. He said that I "never reported it". Um, if someone has to report a heretic just to get the mods to do anything, something is wrong.
-
"I'm calmer than you are."
-
Hatch and I should get a few beers and sort it out. Nothing a little bit o alcohol can't fix.
Like this?
:alcohol:
I think I'll pass, but thanks for the offer. You and I have fundamental differences that won't be solved over some beers. :wink:
-
A lot of real men here, talking behind the backs of others.
-
Yes, Mith is absolutely right. The "report it" argument is a despicable excuse for pure laziness.
KK used that line to me on here when I was talking about how Vetus was allowed to post Protestant heresy. He said that I "never reported it". Um, if someone has to report a heretic just to get the mods to do anything, something is wrong.
What about your ridiculous attempt to pressure me to "make reparations for enabling heresy."
Did you forget about that?
-
Yes, Mith is absolutely right. The "report it" argument is a despicable excuse for pure laziness.
KK used that line to me on here when I was talking about how Vetus was allowed to post Protestant heresy. He said that I "never reported it". Um, if someone has to report a heretic just to get the mods to do anything, something is wrong.
What about your ridiculous attempt to pressure me to "make reparations for enabling heresy."
Did you forget about that?
You did enable heresies, Bonaventure. You didn't do squat with Vetus, you simply told him and I to "drop it" after he implied that I was a heretic.
He was also suggesting that the Church had failed, and denied the teaching of the Council of Trent regarding the woman staying at home.
If you were a real friend and a good moderator, you would have told Vetus to hit the road with his Protestant garbage.
I have taken the high road lately and have spoken to you a few times since then, but it's obvious that you don't feel any regrets over what happened.
-
Yes, because on that forum, I am the boss. You are not. You have a privilege, not a right, of posting there, and it can be revoked whenever the owner damn well pleases. We don't owe you anything.
To say that I enabled heresy its one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard in my life. It offends me because it is libelous.
You don't know anything I've told Vetus about the matter outside of the forum, or on the forum. I've certainly told him to keep his vile doctrine to himself.
I told you to stop because he was using his "discussion" with you to post further errors. The phrase "do not feed the trolls" exists for a reason.
I considered you a friend, but I despise the manner in which you post about that situation falsely. It sickens me, and I take it as an insult.
-
You didn't do squat with Vetus,
This is false, but I have nothing to prove to you. God knows the truth.
-
Be a man and respond to me as such, instead of wasting time with a Facebook like function. I do not resort to basing the truth on popularity. Never have, never will.
-
Yes, because on that forum, I am the boss. You are not. You have a privilege, not a right, of posting there, and it can be revoked whenever the owner damn well pleases. We don't owe you anything.
I wouldn't post there if you showed up at my door step with an invitation on a silver platter.
To say that I enabled heresy its one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard in my life. It offends me because it is libelous.
Vetus implied I was a heretic but you did absolutely nothing, and neither did SD's lousy admin. Your hypocrisy is pathetic.
You don't know anything I've told Vetus about the matter outside of the forum, or on the forum. I've certainly told him to keep his vile doctrine to himself.
tmw was the only moderator who truly nipped Vetus Ordo's junk in the bud. No one else did anything. KK finally banned him, but I've never received an apology from any of you.
I told you to stop because he was using his "discussion" with you to post further errors. The phrase "do not feed the trolls" exists for a reason.
Sir, you also made no effort what-so-ever to actually stop his errors. Just as you and KK did nothing after Mithrandylan was wronged by Erin. None of you mods over there - except tmw89 - seem to give a rat's behind about doing the right thing, you all give the libs a free pass.
I considered you a friend, but I despise the manner in which you post about that situation falsely. It sickens me, and I take it as an insult.
It sickens me as to what happened, and the treatment I received from KK and Jaynek afterwards was despicable. It also sickens me that you attempt to justify your lame moderating.
-
Be a man and respond to me as such, instead of wasting time with a Facebook like function. I do not resort to basing the truth on popularity. Never have, never will.
The like/dislike feature is there for a reason, and I have every right to use it. If you don't like it, too bad.
-
I have decided to no longer respond to you, because I believe it will be to no avail.
Good evening, and God bless.
-
Bonaventure may have originally been reluctant to ban Vetus, but I know for a fact that he eventually pushed for the ban. And it wasn't too long afterwards.
As to 'talking behind backs' I have said nothing here that I haven't already said on SD. Not sure why all of a sudden it 'stings.'
-
None of you mods over there - except tmw89 - seem to give a rat's behind about doing the right thing,
I am sorry, this was out of line. I didn't intend to say that SD's other mods have no morals. I shouldn't have written that and sincerely apologise.
-
A lot of real men here, talking behind the backs of others.
Pius IX/Bonaventure/CrusaderPhilly, what's being exhibited on this thread that isn't, in principle, being exhibited on the thread on Sussscippee Domminee entitled Cathinfo Problems? in The Coffee Pot subforum?
The only difference between that thread and this one is that on this thread we're articulating specific problems with your forum. On the thread referenced above no such discussion is taking place. Just some digs at this forum without any arguments to back them up.
That's all I ever see from people on Fisheaters and now SD. Just these little digs that don't mean anything.
This may seem like a small matter, but it isn't really. Just once I'd like to see those of you who dislike this forum point to something that goes on here that is incompatible with Church teaching.
-
Bonaventure may have originally been reluctant to ban Vetus, but I know for a fact that he eventually pushed for the ban. And it wasn't too long afterwards.
As to 'talking behind backs' I have said nothing here that I haven't already said on SD. Not sure why all of a sudden it 'stings.'
I haven't said much here that I didn't say over there. I was banned for a reason after all.
-
A lot of real men here, talking behind the backs of others.
Pius IX/Bonaventure/CrusaderPhilly, what's being exhibited on this thread that isn't, in principle, being exhibited on the thread on Sussscippee Domminee entitled Cathinfo Problems? in The Coffee Pot subforum?
I cannot find such a thread.
-
I wouldn't post there if you showed up at my door step with an invitation on a silver platter.
Seeing as you seemed to just whinge the majority of the time you posted there, I don't think anyone really cares on whether you post or not.
Vetus implied I was a heretic but you did absolutely nothing, and neither did SD's lousy admin. Your hypocrisy is pathetic.
Stop being childish and be a man. The admin doesn't have 16 hours a day to sit on the forum moderating. If he had ever slandered you, you should have reported it, and if it had truly violated the rules and the report wasn't an exaggeration of events, the admin would have promptly taken action.
tmw was the only moderator who truly nipped Vetus Ordo's junk in the bud. No one else did anything. KK finally banned him, but I've never received an apology from any of you.
That's nonsense. The admins kept a close eye on Vetus' activity to make sure he wasn't breaking the rules. When he did, disciplinary action was taken.
Sir, you also made no effort what-so-ever to actually stop his errors. Just as you and KK did nothing after Mithrandylan was wronged by Erin. None of you mods over there - except tmw89 - seem to give a rat's behind about doing the right thing, you all give the libs a free pass.
You folks need to stop being such drama queens. It's an internet forum. The mods might run the place a bit differently than how you personally might want them to. Big deal. Don't like it over there? Don't post. No one is forcing you to. Do you ever think to yourself that maybe your personal version of events might be wrong?
It sickens me as to what happened, and the treatment I received from KK and Jaynek afterwards was despicable. It also sickens me that you attempt to justify your lame moderating.
Do you need a tissue? Refer to the answer above.
-
A lot of real men here, talking behind the backs of others.
Pius IX/Bonaventure/CrusaderPhilly, what's being exhibited on this thread that isn't, in principle, being exhibited on the thread on Sussscippee Domminee entitled Cathinfo Problems? in The Coffee Pot subforum?
I cannot find such a thread.
It's on the third page of that subforum.
I just chose that thread because Bonaventure gets a good laugh from a joke made about this forum.
-
Wow, 40 pages and still going.
I mean, c'mon, SD *is* FE2 - since it was modeled after FE, I don't understand why on earth anyone would expect it to be something different.
I only glance at that site on occasion but it is plain enough just from cursory glances that the libs are allowed to reign on SD same as FE.
It's same as like when this stupid revolution began - they've ignored and or kicked out or belittled or slandered all the ones who maintain the true teachings while they tolerate, welcome and otherwise make allowances for the libs, the Conciliarists, the fems and the prots - all under the banner of being polite - attracting more flies with honey and etc.
Not saying anything derogatory against anyone in particular - simply stating what is.
I know how this will sound but it is not meant to have any additional meaning than what it says..........Whoever does not see that FE and SD are trad forums in name only, needs to stop and understand that they do not know what Catholicism is - and that they certainly do not know liberal agendas when they see it.
Better to keep your allegiance to CI - the only forum I know of where the trads jump all over the libs when they need it vs the other way around. It's a refreshing change to say the least!
My .02 ~ now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
-
I'll lay out why SD is a FishEaters II. The real issue lies with most of the mods.
Only ONE is pro-Williamson. Here's a re-cap of their positions:
tmw89: sedevacantist, pro-Resistance
Bonaventure: sedevacantist, doesn't want a deal but seems to like +Fellay better
Kaesekopf: claims to like Bishop Williamson though is pro-Fellay
Walty/Louis IX: pro-Fellay
Penelope: pro-FSSP/Indult, may sympathize with SSPX somewhat
See the problem here? All but one is pro-Fellay or worse. And we've seen what happens when a forum is predominately pro-Fellay.
And that's just one issue. The fact that the admin has feministic views much in-line with FE and gives free passes to libs and even Protestants is what really messes up the forum.
Again, good post. But I find that a few very simple litmus tests produce at least equally impressive results.
You'll find that people who know of this forum and yet prefer Fisheaters or SD fail at least one of these litmus tests:
Feminism
PC race views
Not anti-Jєωιѕн
Catholics before Vatican II were not PC on race, were not feminists, and were unapologetically anti-Jєωιѕн.
These are three very useful litmus tests that can be used to distinguish fake Catholics from the real deal.
You find some people are anti-Jєωιѕн, but are infected with feminism. Some people have PC racial views but are anti-Jєωιѕн. Then you find people who are pro-Jєωιѕн but anti-feminist.
The key is finding people who exhibit none of those weaknesses, and there you will find the real Catholics.
May sound crude, but it's a very effective way to figure people out.
-
Thomas, please mind your own business and butt out. Thank you.
-
Walty, you and Jaynek can't justify SD's liberalism no matter how much you try, I'm afraid.
Wow, with posters like Jaynek and erin is nice, it's another regular fisheaters. I'll be sure to stay away from that forum too.
What a bunch of crap.
-
The libtards should just go back to Libtardianville with their libtard disputes, and leave CI alone. It's like the VII people coming to an independent chapel, and complaining how we're not under "da bishop." :rolleyes: Please, just take your fights back where they came from.
-
I just read some of that mess of a thread.
It was lolanthe who first called Tele a "pervert", then CollegeCatholic (Kaesekopf) chimed in and agreed.
Now I understand why Tele got into such a battle with lolanthe and erin is (not) nice here on CI almost two years ago. Those two are feminists and give Traditional Catholicism a bad name.
Speaking of erinsinice, why doesn't Walty find it problematic that an admitted feminist is tolerated on his forum? Kaesekopf has the biggest crush, I don't think I'm revealing any big secret. It's not like she's new, and should be given some breathing room so that she can learn that she's wrong about some things. She's been on these forums for years entertaining us with her one-liners and feminist BS. If she was going to change her stripes she already would have.
I got this right away from her. It seems to me, she's not a traditionalist at all.
-
I'll lay out why SD is a FishEaters II. The real issue lies with most of the mods.
Only ONE is pro-Williamson. Here's a re-cap of their positions:
tmw89: sedevacantist, pro-Resistance
Bonaventure: sedevacantist, doesn't want a deal but seems to like +Fellay better
Kaesekopf: claims to like Bishop Williamson though is pro-Fellay
Walty/Louis IX: pro-Fellay
Penelope: pro-FSSP/Indult, may sympathize with SSPX somewhat
See the problem here? All but one is pro-Fellay or worse. And we've seen what happens when a forum is predominately pro-Fellay.
And that's just one issue. The fact that the admin has feministic views much in-line with FE and gives free passes to libs and even Protestants is what really messes up the forum.
Again, good post. But I find that a few very simple litmus tests produce at least equally impressive results.
You'll find that people who know of this forum and yet prefer Fisheaters or SD fail at least one of these litmus tests:
Feminism
PC race views
Not anti-Jєωιѕн
Catholics before Vatican II were not PC on race, were not feminists, and were unapologetically anti-Jєωιѕн.
These are three very useful litmus tests that can be used to distinguish fake Catholics from the real deal.
You find some people are anti-Jєωιѕн, but are infected with feminism. Some people have PC racial views but are anti-Jєωιѕн. Then you find people who are pro-Jєωιѕн but anti-feminist.
The key is finding people who exhibit none of those weaknesses, and there you will find the real Catholics.
May sound crude, but it's a very effective way to figure people out.
:laugh1:
Much amusement!!
-
Thanks Laramie! :wink:
-
I'll lay out why SD is a FishEaters II. The real issue lies with most of the mods.
Only ONE is pro-Williamson. Here's a re-cap of their positions:
tmw89: sedevacantist, pro-Resistance
Bonaventure: sedevacantist, doesn't want a deal but seems to like +Fellay better
Kaesekopf: claims to like Bishop Williamson though is pro-Fellay
Walty/Louis IX: pro-Fellay
Penelope: pro-FSSP/Indult, may sympathize with SSPX somewhat
See the problem here? All but one is pro-Fellay or worse. And we've seen what happens when a forum is predominately pro-Fellay.
And that's just one issue. The fact that the admin has feministic views much in-line with FE and gives free passes to libs and even Protestants is what really messes up the forum.
Again, good post. But I find that a few very simple litmus tests produce at least equally impressive results.
You'll find that people who know of this forum and yet prefer Fisheaters or SD fail at least one of these litmus tests:
Feminism
PC race views
Not anti-Jєωιѕн
Catholics before Vatican II were not PC on race, were not feminists, and were unapologetically anti-Jєωιѕн.
These are three very useful litmus tests that can be used to distinguish fake Catholics from the real deal.
You find some people are anti-Jєωιѕн, but are infected with feminism. Some people have PC racial views but are anti-Jєωιѕн. Then you find people who are pro-Jєωιѕн but anti-feminist.
The key is finding people who exhibit none of those weaknesses, and there you will find the real Catholics.
May sound crude, but it's a very effective way to figure people out.
Who, in SD passes your litmus test? Name names.
And while you're at it, name FE members who also make the grade.
-
On SD, I'm pretty sure GottmitunsAlex and tmw pass. I wasn't surprised to learn today that tmw is stepping down as moderator over on SD. He's undoubtedly bothered by Kaesekopf's feminism, among other things.
-
No one I know of on FE passes the test. I don't lurk over there as much as I used to, so there may be some newbies who would pass. But after the Impy affair I would think most everyone with a functioning brain left.
-
No one I know of on FE passes the test. I don't lurk over there as much as I used to, so there may be some newbies who would pass. But after the Impy affair I would think most everyone with a functioning brain left.
FE is the "trad" forum equivalent of Jerry Springer and The View combined.
-
Ah the trad circular firing squad....so sad yet strangely entertaining. :clown:
Thank God I can now view this cutthroat mentality from the outside. It really is disgusting.
Does it surprise anyone that a forum which has a "conversion" book entitled: "The FishEaters Wham-Bam Thank You, Ma'am Conversion Booklet"; which is a nice usage of modern nomenclature for a quick, self-serving sex act to help promote traditional Catholicism, tolerates people like Melkite spreading his poison?
I was thinking the same thing: Fisheaters 2.0
There is a reason I don't post Fisheaters. It's too bad the feminists and neo-trads from FE seem to be taking over SD.
So you've changed in the last few months?
-
On SD, I'm pretty sure GottmitunsAlex and tmw pass. I wasn't surprised to learn today that tmw is stepping down as moderator over on SD. He's undoubtedly bothered by Kaesekopf's feminism, among other things.
Maybe Hawaii Five-O as well. He's definitely anti-Jєωιѕн, and seems to be anti-feminist. I don't think being married to a nonwhite should necessary dispose one towards embracing today's PC race politics. I'd like to think that were I married to a nonwhite I would still have politically incorrect views on race.
He said recently that he only just became aware of this forum.
Heinrich might be an exception as well.
-
Anyone can thumb down anything, I don't know why people assume because something has one thumb down that is even necessarily intentional.
-
It's thumbed down because he's not a Catholic saint.
I would have thumbed it down too if I'd known that.
Are you still Catholic Alex?
-
I have changed in that I converted to Orthodoxy. Even before though the online trad culture of detraction, name calling, gossip and venom was wearing thin with me. I am certainly guilty at times of doing it myself. It is too bad seeing those who are united in so much and fighting a much larger enemy (the VII church) spend so much ammunition on each other.
"See those trad Catholics, how they love one another!"
If someone has the wrong opinion yes they deserve to be taught with a firm hand if need be or with "name-calling and venom" as you said.
-
Roland, calm it down. Nobody wants to hear it.
-
If someone presents the writings of a saint on a Catholic forum one assumes it's a Catholic saint. If you want to quote an "orthodox" "saint" then make it clear.
If someone wants to understand what's happening to the Church the place to look is the Apocalypse and the commentators upon it.
As for "orthodoxy" - they are generally as modernists as the conciliarists.
And so much for North Carolina and the priest who is sent there.
puh
-
As for "orthodoxy" - they are generally as modernists as the conciliarists.
puh
Unfortunately true. People are mistaken if they believe that Orthodoxy hasn't been hijacked by modernists, communists, and other deviants. Even in Soviet Times, many leading figures in the Orthodox church collaborated with the Communists and back-stabbed their fellow Christians.
-
- Divorce and remarriage.
- Contraception.
Is it possible that the current Orthodox stance on divorce/remarriage and contraception are a result of modern liberal ideas infecting the Church, rather than being grounded in traditional Orthodox teaching? I do know that Old Believers (pre-Nikon reforms Russian Orthodox Christians) do not allow divorce.
-
Outside of the Church there is no salvation.
The "orthodox" are Heretics and Schismatics.
If someone loses the Catholic Faith and joins the heretical “orthodox”, they are going to Hell, unless they repent.
Do not let the Apostasy of conciliar “rome” cause you to lose the Faith.
Stay Catholic. Be traditional Catholic.
To lose the Catholic Faith is to lose EVERYTHING.
-
What this thread shows it that the "fisheaters" forum spreads contamination wherever those heavily influenced by it go.
-
I think anyone could have guessed by his Pokemon avatar that he did not take Catholicism very seriously.
The kid with the Charizard Pokemon Avatar converted to orthodoxy? O well.
:fryingpan:
-
I think anyone could have guessed by his Pokemon avatar that he did not take Catholicism very seriously.
The kid with the Charizard Pokemon Avatar converted to orthodoxy? O well.
:fryingpan:
I thought he was helping his siblings learn about the faith? :pray: :pray: :pray:
-
O well.
Why such a nonchalant response to a situation so grave, Matto?
Apostasy puts his soul in grave danger. "Oh well" doesn't seem like the fitting response when one of your fellow Catholics has turned away from the true Faith.
-
Alex117 losing the Faith is a sobering example of what can befall Catholics in this Age of Apostasy.
Obviously, we have to reject the Heresy and Schism and idolatry of the conciliar “church”.
But we MUST remain Catholic.
The alternative is damnation.
-
O well.
Why such a nonchalant response to a situation so grave, Matto?
Apostasy puts his soul in grave danger. "Oh well" doesn't seem like the fitting response when one of your fellow Catholics has turned away from the true Faith.
I thought the cartoon of hitting someone over the head with a frying pan showed how I felt. I did not mean to make light of a man falling into heresy and schism.
-
O well.
Why such a nonchalant response to a situation so grave, Matto?
Apostasy puts his soul in grave danger. "Oh well" doesn't seem like the fitting response when one of your fellow Catholics has turned away from the true Faith.
I thought the cartoon of hitting someone over the head with a frying pan showed how I felt. I did not mean to make light of a man falling into heresy and schism.
Ok. Im sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Prayers for the return of Alex117 to the Catholic Faith. :pray:
-
Prayers for the return of Alex117 to the Catholic Faith. :pray:
:applause:
Dear Servus,
That is a very good post indeed.
Let's all say a prayer for poor Alex117. He seemed like a nice person. It is very sad that Alex117 lost the Faith.
-
On SD, I'm pretty sure GottmitunsAlex and tmw pass. I wasn't surprised to learn today that tmw is stepping down as moderator over on SD. He's undoubtedly bothered by Kaesekopf's feminism, among other things.
Maybe Hawaii Five-O as well. He's definitely anti-Jєωιѕн, and seems to be anti-feminist. I don't think being married to a nonwhite should necessary dispose one towards embracing today's PC race politics. I'd like to think that were I married to a nonwhite I would still have politically incorrect views on race.
He said recently that he only just became aware of this forum.
Heinrich might be an exception as well.
Would JoeVoxxPop from FE fit the bill?
-
:roll-laugh1:
This thread is wonderful. Rather than anyone actually citing why Orthodoxy is not the truth, my original post is deleted and I am accused of never having any faith at all!
Thank God for people like Servus, Jen, and Sede who, rather than acting like smug bastards, actually reached out to me via PM and have offered prayers on my behalf. Jen, who must drive three hours to Mass one way and cannot go often, has even offered a Mass on behalf. As for the rest of you, do you think I'm going to come back to traditional Catholicism by being belittled and accused of being mentally a child who never had any faith? You should be ashamed of yourselves for acting in such an un-Christ-like manner.
Going Orthodox was not a decision that I made lightly. This is my eternal soul that is on the line here - I did not sit down and say, "You know what, I really prefer it if all of my priests have beards, so I'm go Orthodox!!!" I personally made my decision after studying the docuмents of Vatican I in relation to papal authority and infallibility (because I was on the edge of going sede), and then reading books on why the Orthodox do not recognize papal authority at all. Eventually, I found myself agreeing with the Orthodox view on the Papacy, rather than the sedevacantist or SSPX view, and after much prayer and research, I decided that Orthodoxy was ultimately the truth. In my original post (before it was deleted lol), I told you all that I would explain my reasoning if Matthew gave me permission to do so, but seeing as how Matthew saw it fit to instead delete my post, I'm guessing that for me to speak would be too scandalous and might - gasp! - plant seeds of doubt in others. If Catholicism is the one true faith, why the fear? Let me speak my piece. I would actually like to hear you all rebuke Orthodoxy.
Since I'm sure this post is going to be deleted, I will be more than happy to PM any of you my reasoning for leaving Catholicism. Likewise, if you really want to be asked hard questions about your faith in the Papacy, read the first three chapters of The Papacy by Fr. Vladimir Guettée. If anyone here can rebuke Fr. Vladimir's reasoning that he makes in the first three, short chapters, that would do much in bringing me back to Catholicism.
The Papacy: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/guettee_thepapacy.pdf
Converting are we? I do hope this forum stays Catholic. I am a newbie here from an ugly forum thinking this forum is a Catholic one. It looks like an Ecuмenical one. Cool. Thanks for the links. I'll read into it.
-
Having read the first and second chapters, Alex, it is unimpressive, relying on what amounts to obfuscation and sleight of hand to quibble with the crystal-clear words of Christ himself in Matthew 16:17-19.
As an example, take your author's claim that in Greek and Latin the name given to Peter (petro, petrus) is masculine gender, while the Rock referred to by Christ is feminine (petra). This minor disjunct is somehow taken to demonstrate that there is no distinct connection between Christ calling Peter petro and immediately after referring to the petra on which he founds his Church. On the face of it, that's an extremely outlandish conclusion. But the clincher is that in Aramaic, the language Christ spoke, the words are identical (cepha). To discover this all you would have to consult is the online Catholic Encyclopedia page on the Pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm). As a result, one has to wonder how much homework you did on this man's claims.
The greater number of tile Fathers of the Church have not admitted the play upon words that our Ultramontanes attribute to Jesus Christ in applying to St. Peter these words, "And upon this rock I will build my Church." [...] As for the few old writers who admitted this play upon words, it must be remembered that none of them interpreted the text in a manner favorable to the Papal sovereignty, nor drew from it the exaggerated consequences of this system.
As for what the Church Fathers thought of that passage, pay attention to the words of Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and Gregory of nαzιanzen - who are not some 'old writers' but the 'Three Holy Hierarchs' of the East.
He saith to him, "Feed my sheep". Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say "Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?", I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.
Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of choice, one is called a rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the Church.
And when he, the instrument of such and so great a judgment; he the minister of the so great wrath of God upon a sinner; that blessed Peter, who was preferred before all the other disciples; who alone received a greater testimony and blessing than the rest; he to whom were entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Hope this little bit helps sway you, though undoubtedly prayers will be more efficacious.
-
Would JoeVoxxPop from FE fit the bill?
He was banned from FE a while ago and posts on SD now.
-
Alex, if you wouldn't mind, which of Guettee's objections do you find most convincing? There's an entire bookful of them and I'd like to cut to the chase. Looking forward to it.
-
Would JoeVoxxPop from FE fit the bill?
He was banned from FE a while ago and posts on SD now.
He's probably in the will-ban list. They banned three or four members today.
-
Would JoeVoxxPop from FE fit the bill?
He was banned from FE a while ago and posts on SD now.
He's probably in the will-ban list. They banned three or four members today.
Two of the three posters banned at SD were more liberal types. The third was only banned for 3 days for being uncharitable. He was taking the position that Muslims are a greater threat than Jews, although I doubt that had anything to do being banned - just the way he was talking.
-
I would just like to point out the danger of claiming "the religion is false if sedevacantism is true" - what happened to Alex is a good example of how the dogmatic anti-sede position threatens the Faith of Catholics.
Archbishop Lefebvre said it was possible sedevacantism was true. If he believed that then he believed it was not incompatible with the Catholic Faith.
The dogmatic anti-sedes often make arguments that would make sedevacantism an impossible position, no matter what a claimant to the Papacy said or did.
If a man was not really Pope but was believed to be, this would contribute to wrecking the Faith of many people: including those who buy into the neotraditional line (it's neo-traditional, it's not what the Archbishop taught!) that sedevacantism is necessarily schismatic and even heretical.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre said it was possible sedevacantism was true. If he believed that then he believed it was not incompatible with the Catholic Faith.
I agree with the Archbishop. Though I do not say the Pope is not the Pope, I understand that he might not be and that sedevacantism might be true, so I am not one of those SSPX supporters who are anti-sedevacantist.
-
Would JoeVoxxPop from FE fit the bill?
He was banned from FE a while ago and posts on SD now.
He's probably in the will-ban list. They banned three or four members today.
Two of the three posters banned at SD were more liberal types. The third was only banned for 3 days for being uncharitable. He was taking the position that Muslims are a greater threat than Jews, although I doubt that had anything to do being banned - just the way he was talking.
Now add Patrick to that list. That's 30% of their membership right there.
:facepalm:
-
Would JoeVoxxPop from FE fit the bill?
He was banned from FE a while ago and posts on SD now.
He's probably in the will-ban list. They banned three or four members today.
Two of the three posters banned at SD were more liberal types. The third was only banned for 3 days for being uncharitable. He was taking the position that Muslims are a greater threat than Jews, although I doubt that had anything to do being banned - just the way he was talking.
Now add Patrick to that list. That's 30% of their membership right there.
:facepalm:
Patrick was not banned. He says that he is not posting there anymore, but his hero Mithrandylan did not follow through with this, so I will wait to see what Patrick really does.
There are well over 200 members at SD and they have been steadily growing. Why are you making untrue claims?
-
I would just like to point out the danger of claiming "the religion is false if sedevacantism is true" - what happened to Alex is a good example of how the dogmatic anti-sede position threatens the Faith of Catholics.
Archbishop Lefebvre said it was possible sedevacantism was true. If he believed that then he believed it was not incompatible with the Catholic Faith.
The dogmatic anti-sedes often make arguments that would make sedevacantism an impossible position, no matter what a claimant to the Papacy said or did.
If a man was not really Pope but was believed to be, this would contribute to wrecking the Faith of many people: including those who buy into the neotraditional line (it's neo-traditional, it's not what the Archbishop taught!) that sedevacantism is necessarily schismatic and even heretical.
:applause:
-
Would JoeVoxxPop from FE fit the bill?
He was banned from FE a while ago and posts on SD now.
He's probably in the will-ban list. They banned three or four members today.
Two of the three posters banned at SD were more liberal types. The third was only banned for 3 days for being uncharitable. He was taking the position that Muslims are a greater threat than Jews, although I doubt that had anything to do being banned - just the way he was talking.
Now add Patrick to that list. That's 30% of their membership right there.
:facepalm:
Patrick was not banned. He says that he is not posting there anymore, but his hero Mithrandylan did not follow through with this, so I will wait to see what Patrick really does.
There are well over 200 members at SD and they have been steadily growing. Why are you making untrue claims?
I never said he was banned.
And as for the percentage figure, it was figurative.
-
While one might say 30% as a figurative way to say a large proportion, even figuratively it does not mean a small proportion. One person was perma-banned and another claims to have quit. That makes 2 out of over 200. We are talking about less than one percent leaving and that is not even considering the number of people who have joined during that time. There may even be a net gain. You "figuratively" implied that SD has a problem with membership which is simply false.
You might want to examine your conscience and consider whether you need to take this to Confession.
-
You might want to examine your conscience and consider whether you need to take this to Confession.
You already did that for me.
You do know the difference beween membership and active membership right?
btw-You're stock just went down a few points with your charitable post.
:applause:
-
You might want to examine your conscience and consider whether you need to take this to Confession.
You already did that for me.
You do know the difference beween membership and active membership right?
btw-You're stock just went down a few points with your charitable post.
:applause:
There are people who would vote down my posts if I said the sky is blue. It is not relevant to the morality of you writing a dishonest post. We do not determine right and wrong by votes.
-
I'm not buddy-buddy with crypto-Jews, feminists, and other riff-raff.
Do you actually know any crypto-Jews or do you just falsely accuse others as you have accused me?
I'm sure I know some. Any Jews who convert to the Church and yet reject the teaching that Jews are enemies of the Faith can be justifiably accused of being crypto-Jews.
Interesting explanation.
-
As an example, take your author's claim that in Greek and Latin the name given to Peter (petro, petrus) is masculine gender, while the Rock referred to by Christ is feminine (petra). This minor disjunct is somehow taken to demonstrate that there is no distinct connection between Christ calling Peter petro and immediately after referring to the petra on which he founds his Church. On the face of it, that's an extremely outlandish conclusion. But the clincher is that in Aramaic, the language Christ spoke, the words are identical (cepha). To discover this all you would have to consult is the online Catholic Encyclopedia page on the Pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm). As a result, one has to wonder how much homework you did on this man's claims.
This is a good argument. Christ would have indeed said "cepha" in both instances in Aramaic. However, the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek (it was possibly written in Hebrew as well, but this version as been lost to us). This is stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Why did the original author of the Gospel of Matthew (possibly Matthew himself, possibly others) see it fit to make a distinction between the two "rocks"?
First, I should correct an important inaccuracy in your reply. Tradition holds that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, not in Greek. This comes to us by way of St. Irenaeus, as well as of Eusebius and Origen -- two of the Fathers whom you quoted, thus whose authority on this one assumes you would be inclined to respect. So it is inaccurate to say that the Gospel was written in Greek; instead, we should say that the earliest extant copies are in Greek. However that may be, in a sense it’s immaterial to us, since we don’t have the original Aramaic.
So that leaves us to ask why the Greek copies make this distinction. It must serve some purpose in the economy of Revelation, since nobody can believe that Providence would leave us with a misleading and inaccurate Gospel. I am not certain what that purpose is, but what is self-evident is that even with the petrus/petra distinction, the passage still obviously affirms the primacy of Peter. If petra can be said to refer to faith, or to Christ himself, it nevertheless remains that God the Father singled out Peter from the others by inspiring him to be first in the confession of faith: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And it is equally clear that God the Son consequently singled out Peter from among the Apostles, first by naming him after this petra, and second by giving to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. To summarize, the distinction may exist to help us better perceive that Peter heads the Church by being first in the confession of Christ; and that, as the Catechism of Trent tells us, Peter is the visible head, while Christ is the invisible; but it assuredly does not exist to show us that Peter was not really first among the Apostles: that is simply grasping at straws.
You quote three Church Fathers that appear to make a claim for the Papacy. Let me quote six Church Fathers which appear to make a claim against the Papacy.
It would require no mental effort to multiply quotations from Church Fathers, so I propose to avoid doing that.
Regarding the quotations you provide, the first thing I want to point out is that since Scripture is multi-valent, it does not follow, from the fact that one meaning is drawn from it to illustrate a certain point, that this is to the exclusion of other possible meanings. In other words, if for example St. Chrysostom on occasion speaks of the rock as referring to faith in Christ, or to Christ himself, this can’t be taken to mean that he does not also understand the rock to refer to Peter and his primacy. Scripture has different senses, and these interpretations are not mutually exclusive. So when St. Chrysostom says this:
And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession.
and also this:
Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.
we do not conclude that here is a foolish or hypocritical man, incapable of consistency, who at one time holds the opinion that the rock is faith, and another time holds that it is Peter; we conclude that he holds both of these things at once, since in no way are they mutually exclusive. It is the case that Peter was first in confessing the Rock that is Christ, and it is also the case that this makes him and his successors the Rock of the Church. For this reason I’m not going to respond to each quotation you’ve provided from him; for he’s so clearly an adherent to the Bishop of Rome that it follows, of necessity, that you’ve misunderstood these passages.
In passing, the remainder of the first quotation you made from Chrysostom clearly supports the papacy:
Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd...For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven.
A parallel argument can be made with respect to your quotation from St. Ambrose, who states that Peter’s primacy is of confession of faith, not honour:
He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank.
But elsewhere he states this:
Because he alone of all of them professed [Christ] he was placed above all.
Once more, the simplest conclusion is that the two statements are in harmony. Once more, the remainder of the quotation you provided supports the papacy:
This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’
Regarding the Origen, who despite being a Father, is notoriously problematic and difficult to interpret. (For the sake of space I won’t quote it again in this reply. If necessary, please refer to Alex’s post.) He seems to take the passage from the Gospel of Matthew in the anagogical sense, whereby each of us becomes a rock through our confession of Christ, and in each of us God builds his Church. This mystical meaning shouldn’t be taken at the expense of the literal sense, which makes, among us, St. Peter the rock. It shouldn't be taken that way because, if it is, then Protestant individualism is the final conclusion of his logic. Every man can possess for himself the very keys of the kingdom of heaven, so what use is there for popes, or for that matter, priests? This interpretation would undermine Orthodoxy as much as it would Catholicism. In other words, the quotation is dynamite, and I don’t advise you to huck it around like that.
Sadly, I don’t have time this evening to pick through all the rest. By now I believe I’ve gone far enough to expose several of your fundamental misunderstandings, both of what the Fathers are saying and of what the Church teaches regarding the papacy. Again, let us accept the petrus/petra distinction made in the Greek, although this did not exist in the original Aramaic. The Catechism of Trent accepts this distinction implicitly, when it quotes St. Basil: Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock. There is no difficulty – none whatsoever – in squaring this distinction with the perennial understanding of the Church, at last formally defined in Vatican I, that knows Peter to be the Vicar of Christ.
I hope you find these arguments as good as the last one. You're right that it will take time to respond to the other questions, so thanks for your patience.
-
Dear Graham,
Thank you for the time and effort that you have put into defending the Catholic Faith against the eastern orthodox heresies.
It is much appreciated.
Please continue with this important task.
God Bless you, Graham.
Yours, Sede Catholic.
-
You might want to examine your conscience and consider whether you need to take this to Confession.
You already did that for me.
You do know the difference beween membership and active membership right?
btw-You're stock just went down a few points with your charitable post.
:applause:
There are people who would vote down my posts if I said the sky is blue. It is not relevant to the morality of you writing a dishonest post. We do not determine right and wrong by votes.
Thanks to the people who voted down this post and proved my point. :smile:
By the way, it is charitable to remind a person that he ought to be honest.
-
You aren't being honest whenever you defend FE or SD, Jaynek.
-
You aren't being honest whenever you defend FE or SD, Jaynek.
Exactly what are you claiming was dishonest? Anything that I have ever posted was something I believed to be true. You might have disagreed with it, but that does not make something dishonest.
-
Reading this thread leaves me with a few questions. I hope you can help me out here. These may sound ignorant to old-timers, but my questions are . . .
What was the pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ thing at Fisheaters?
What does it means that some trads are pro-Felley and others are not?
Why did no one mention AngelQueen?
What is a crypto-Jew?
I ask this because my mother's mother was Jєωιѕн, so by Jєωιѕн law I would be Jєωιѕн, except I converted, and so we are "cursed" for four generations. My two grandmothers were the only persons in my childhood who were not evil; I was very close to both of them. So I write G-d the way my Jєωιѕн grandmother taught me to, and some people seem to be offended by that. What's up with that? Is that supposed to mean I am not really a traditional Catholic? If a person were a crypto-Jew, wouldn't that mean he or she is pretending not to be Jєωιѕн?
-
4 Cera
What was the pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ thing at Fisheaters?
Good question. I lurked and trolled, on and off, for a while; I completely missed the fαɢɢօt drama.
What does it means that some trads are pro-Felley and others are not?
I'm not SSPX, nor it's scion, SSPX-SO, but Bishop Fellay sh- the bed with his stunt of 2012 by even taking a look at the doctrinal preamble from the Occupy Vatican team, headed by Fr Ratzinger. Now Bishop Fellay is just s-ing the bed, in cold sweat, for ever having participated: Plausible Deniability (No, I never did nor said that). From what I have seen, Society whores like Father Daniel Themann are accusing Father Pfeiffer of being nothing more than the latest iteration of "The Nine" (Fr Cekada, Bishops Dolan, Sanborn, and Kelly, &c.), of which is playing with my emotions because the SSPX-SO dynamic duo, Pfeiffer and Hewko, are vehemently denying of being of that position, and are slandering and libeling those of us who are sedevacantists. But it's all good. I keeping my chill, like an Original Gangster. :cool: :applause: :smoke-pot:
Why did no one mention AngelQueen?
To me, that is an obscure web team. Sorry, I don't have any other detail on them.
What is a crypto-Jew?
You will receive a lot of answers to this question. Your best bet is to ask on Stormfront's guest forums. My answer is Father Joseph Ratzinger and company, who ten years ago released the pro oven dodger docuмent, which stated that the kikes's wait for their real messiah was not in vain. This, to me, is an example of a crypto-Jew: Goyim who go out of their way to appease the vermin, Das Juden. Der Jude is a natural enemy of Jesus Christ, as is the Free Mason: ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic, ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry, Jєωιѕн Masonry; it's all the same. I strongly recommend Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's 1980 treatise, Against the Heresies. In one of the last two chapters, the man is a tyrannosaur of an "αnтι-ѕємιтє" by clowning on World Jewry's sweet tooth for international finance, and usury. The Jew has an ax to grind on Catholic civilization (Catholic Civilization is none other than Western Civilization) for their own desire to live in ghettos in Europe, a life apart from Christendom.
I ask this because my mother's mother was Jєωιѕн, so by Jєωιѕн law I would be Jєωιѕн, except I converted, and so we are "cursed" for four generations. My two grandmothers were the only persons in my childhood who were not evil; I was very close to both of them. So I write G-d the way my Jєωιѕн grandmother taught me to, and some people seem to be offended by that. What's up with that? Is that supposed to mean I am not really a traditional Catholic? If a person were a crypto-Jew, wouldn't that mean he or she is pretending not to be Jєωιѕн?
You are not cursed, by anyone, or anything, Catholic, for converting. :smile: Doing good is not a 'multi-pass' into Heaven. Your late grandma Judy, if she had an desire, whether or not a silent innate one, to do as the Church teaches and by doing so, join, the Holy Roman Church, she, having been redeemed by Christ's blood, might have been saved, emphasis on 'might' as only God knows for sure; pay no long term attention to the depraved Feeneyite sons of bitches at Most Holy Family Monastery, as the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Catechism (Trent), and the Catechism of Saint Pius X all teach Baptism of Desire and Blood.
I can see how writing G-d would mark you as a crypto-Jew as that is the oven dodgers' trademark signature. I am not offended by anyone writing that. :wink: I know it is said to be over zealous for protecting God's name, and is therefore not necessary to do so for a myriad of reasons, one of which is that the Apostles never did so, but I won't hunt down anyone for doing so; just the smelly ones who play with the opacity and blur tools so that in order to arrest the Church's mission to "teach all nations"; for by way of melding Church and State and having proud Catholic princes violently crushing, within their realms, false religions and heresies; and, Catholic princes launching Crusades all across the globe to bring into subjugation the heathen. :shocked:
Yes a crypto Jew is someone who dissipates their Jєωιѕн identity, in the short term, in order to for it to triumph, in the long term.
Don't sweat it, Cera; just take your time in informing yourself about Indulgences and purgatory, and how to pray for your relations.
Back into Lurker Mode. :cheers: :clown:
-
Hey Cuerno, watch your language! I am not arguing with the contents of your post, just the vulgarities.
-
You aren't being honest whenever you defend FE or SD, Jaynek.
Exactly what are you claiming was dishonest? Anything that I have ever posted was something I believed to be true. You might have disagreed with it, but that does not make something dishonest.
What you "believe" to be true are modernist lies. Your approval and support of transsɛҳuąƖs is hideous. Your "HebrewCatholic" heretical sect which you promote is abhorrent.
Do all of us a favor and confine yourself to posting at FE.
-
Like I said, SD is FishEaters 2.0, and it is really an embarassment to Traditional Catholicism.
Quite right.
Ditto.
-
Going Orthodox was not a decision that I made lightly. This is my eternal soul that is on the line here - I did not sit down and say, "You know what, I really prefer it if all of my priests have beards, so I'm go Orthodox!!!" I personally made my decision after studying the docuмents of Vatican I in relation to papal authority and infallibility (because I was on the edge of going sede), and then reading books on why the Orthodox do not recognize papal authority at all. Eventually, I found myself agreeing with the Orthodox view on the Papacy, rather than the sedevacantist or SSPX view, and after much prayer and research, I decided that Orthodoxy was ultimately the truth.
How do you explain then that if Orthodoxy is the truth and Roman Catholicism a heresy/schism that Catholicism was allowed by God to proselytize 1 billion people in today's world, including all of South and Central America whereas Orthodoxy never really moved out of the countries it was in and a few little satellites nearby.
Why leave it to heretics to do the bulk of the "teaching of all nations?"
Why is the Pope, even today constantly seen on the international news and recognised by 95% of the literate world, whereas the Patriarch of All Russias would hardly be recognized by anyone.
Seems to me that over half the lifetime of the Christian Church the relative poor performance of Orthodoxy hints that it is the heresy and not Catholicism. It would seem very strange that God would allow the heresy to flourish over THAT long a period of time and have 5 times as many (notional) adherents.
If I went in a time machine to the year 3000 and the Catholic Church still had the new mass, I'd abandon Tradition because I would figure that God must be OK with the new mass having left it alone for over 1000 years.
-
You aren't being honest whenever you defend FE or SD, Jaynek.
Exactly what are you claiming was dishonest? Anything that I have ever posted was something I believed to be true. You might have disagreed with it, but that does not make something dishonest.
What you "believe" to be true are modernist lies. Your approval and support of transsɛҳuąƖs is hideous. Your "HebrewCatholic" heretical sect which you promote is abhorrent.
Do all of us a favor and confine yourself to posting at FE.
I do not approve of transsɛҳuąƖs. You can not find any posts in which I say otherwise. Nor do I promote the Association of Hebrew Catholics. I agreed with a point made in one of their articles - that it is important to evangelize Jews rather than to think that they are saved through being Jєωιѕн. I disagree with other things they say.
You are misrepresenting my views.
-
You seem to be conveniently avoiding the fact that the Orthodox Church is equally, and likely more, modernist than the Vatican II Church, permitting contraception, allowing divorce and remarriage, collaborating with Communist governments etc.
-
You seem to be conveniently avoiding the fact that the Orthodox Church is equally, and likely more, modernist than the Vatican II Church, permitting contraception, allowing divorce and remarriage, collaborating with Communist governments etc.
It's OK because their leaders aren't "infallible."
Alex117 seems to be under the impression that Catholics are obliged to follow heretics when it's quite the opposite situation.
-
I saw a website recently featuring an Orthodox Bishop who described himself as a "theosophist" and a "practitioner of Zen Buddhism"
-
I saw a website recently featuring an Orthodox Bishop who described himself as a "theosophist" and a "practitioner of Zen Buddhism"
Boom! Headshot! You’re really bringing out the big guns now. How can I refute such an argument? Orthodoxy must be false!
How childish.
The point is that numerous high-ranking figures within the Orthodox Church, which you claim to be the true bastion of Christian tradition, openly promote blatant heresy, including in some cases the actual observance of false religions alongside Christianity.
You need to stop pretending that the Orthodox church is any more faithful to tradition than the Vatican II Church.
-
Going Orthodox was not a decision that I made lightly. This is my eternal soul that is on the line here - I did not sit down and say, "You know what, I really prefer it if all of my priests have beards, so I'm go Orthodox!!!" I personally made my decision after studying the docuмents of Vatican I in relation to papal authority and infallibility (because I was on the edge of going sede), and then reading books on why the Orthodox do not recognize papal authority at all. Eventually, I found myself agreeing with the Orthodox view on the Papacy, rather than the sedevacantist or SSPX view, and after much prayer and research, I decided that Orthodoxy was ultimately the truth.
How do you explain then that if Orthodoxy is the truth and Roman Catholicism a heresy/schism that Catholicism was allowed by God to proselytize 1 billion people in today's world, including all of South and Central America whereas Orthodoxy never really moved out of the countries it was in and a few little satellites nearby.
Why leave it to heretics to do the bulk of the "teaching of all nations?"
Why is the Pope, even today constantly seen on the international news and recognised by 95% of the literate world, whereas the Patriarch of All Russias would hardly be recognized by anyone.
Seems to me that over half the lifetime of the Christian Church the relative poor performance of Orthodoxy hints that it is the heresy and not Catholicism. It would seem very strange that God would allow the heresy to flourish over THAT long a period of time and have 5 times as many (notional) adherents.
If I went in a time machine to the year 3000 and the Catholic Church still had the new mass, I'd abandon Tradition because I would figure that God must be OK with the new mass having left it alone for over 1000 years.
Is it not interesting that the Catholic Church spread forth throughout the entire world in it's mission to spread the Gospel, while the Orthodox Church made only meagre efforts even to convert the indigenous Siberians within Russia's own borders?
-
By the way, Alex, I strongly suggest you read "Upon This Rock" by Stephen Ray.
-
This thread is two pages shorter than before. I can only assume Alex's evangelization was deleted. That's a good call. Let's keep him and Roland in our prayers.
-
You aren't being honest whenever you defend FE or SD, Jaynek.
Exactly what are you claiming was dishonest? Anything that I have ever posted was something I believed to be true. You might have disagreed with it, but that does not make something dishonest.
It is dishonest to support Vox and FE despite all the immorality that goes on there. Yet every time there's a thread here against FishEaters, you take up for it.
-
You aren't being honest whenever you defend FE or SD, Jaynek.
Exactly what are you claiming was dishonest? Anything that I have ever posted was something I believed to be true. You might have disagreed with it, but that does not make something dishonest.
It is dishonest to support Vox and FE despite all the immorality that goes on there. Yet every time there's a thread here against FishEaters, you take up for it.
You are just saying the same thing without answering my question. I am not lying about what I believe. I am not misleading anyone. I am not misrepresenting anything. I am not being dishonest.
-
You aren't being honest whenever you defend FE or SD, Jaynek.
Exactly what are you claiming was dishonest? Anything that I have ever posted was something I believed to be true. You might have disagreed with it, but that does not make something dishonest.
What you "believe" to be true are modernist lies. Your approval and support of transsɛҳuąƖs is hideous. Your "HebrewCatholic" heretical sect which you promote is abhorrent.
Do all of us a favor and confine yourself to posting at FE.
You can not find any posts in which I say otherwise. Nor do I promote the Association of Hebrew Catholics. I agreed with a point made in one of their articles - that it is important to evangelize Jews rather than to think that they are saved through being Jєωιѕн. I disagree with other things they say.
You are misrepresenting my views.
Oh no??? tsk tsk.. shame shame.. More lies.
By Jaynek: February 24, 2013, 12:18:56 AM
"Another group that gets it right is the Association of Hebrew Catholics, a group of Catholics of Jєωιѕн ethnicity. Here is one of there position papers:
http://hebrewcatholic.org/FaithandTheology/Reflections-Covenant-Mission/catholicteaching.html"
I may not be a linguistics major like yourself, but I and every English speaking person understands what "A Group That gets it right" means.
More lies? Or do you want to come clean and apologize to everyone here and the other forums which have had to put up with your Jєωιѕн heretical sect propaganda and your тαℓмυdic liberalism.
As per your "I do not approve of transsɛҳuąƖs. You can not find any posts in which I say otherwise" B.S.
I present:
From Jaynek to everybody regarding Impy the tranny:
The point that you seem to be missing is that there is reason to think that this is not a "gentleman". God did not make Clare a male in the way that He normally makes males.
It is your opinion. You appear to be denying the existence of transsɛҳuąƖism, something which the Church recognizes.
In many cases, the reality of transsɛҳuąƖism is demonstrably a physiological abnormality. There is a Vatican instruction that treats it as different from ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. Your insistence on equating them is coming from you, not Church teaching.
TranssɛҳuąƖism is have a sense that one is other than the sex that one appears to be. Often there is a physiological basis for this sense
I have a friend who went from Christopher to Christine (which is how I picked up more information on this than most people know) and she really got into these things after she changed. I would ask her for make-up advice.
It is information that is not suitable for the general public.
The reason this docuмent was issued sub secretum is also the reason that people should not be judging Clare about this. She consulted with a priest. Nobody here is her spiritual director and a "trial by forum" is not appropriate.
All of Impy's posts show a practicing Catholic who accepts and obeys Church teaching, including that on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. I have never seen any reason to question her honesty or Catholicism.
Just think how shocking it would have been, if she had not gone through the sweet potato stage. At least this way we could get used to it gradually.
Leave. Just leave. It's posters like you that start the rot and decay of Catholicism. Got to your hebrewcatholic.org people. Just stay away from real Catholics.
-
Jayne, you said those things?
-
Nice job, Exfish. :applause:
-
The Association for Hebrew Catholics. This is abhorrent Judaizing. The idea of keeping the demonic тαℓмυdic festivities sickens me. It's gross heresy. You are, then, a bloody marrano.
As for the perverts, well, you consort with perverts (Christopher...Christine) and defend them. You refer to another pervert ('Impy') by his chosen 'name' and his, God forgive me, chosen 'sex'. Truly abhorrent. No Catholic can possibly 'support' someone chopping himself up with a knife so he can be buggered by another man!
You have no place here.
-
She also recommended Chestertonian check out the AHC and provided him with a link to their homepage. This was in general on his introduction to FE thread (which anyone can verify) and not in reference to any particular point.
I don't know anything about them, if they are good or not, but I do know Jayne is sly. But her posting history is so extensive on 3 different forums that no one has the time or interest to go looking for contradictions. You just have to see it as it unfolds.
When you ride fences long enough you get splinters on all sides.
Btw, the way both she and Vox justify backing Impy's sex change is by claiming he was actually a woman born in a male body, so it isn't a sex change, just the correction of a birth defect. Despite the fact that brain scans of post mortem transsɛҳuąƖs showed results between male and female, NOT female; and since they were post mortem, you get into the nature vs nurture argument, among so many other good points there's no need to rehash.
But that's the kind of thought process we're dealing with. They can "honestly" say they don't support transsɛҳuąƖism when they deem someone not to be switching genders, just correcting birth defects. It's devious.
-
Jayne, you said those things?
Here is the comment I made about the Association of Hebrew Catholics in context:
There is a real problem in the Church around this topic. Just this week I was at a NO Mass and one of the prayers of the faithful was "That God may strengthen the Jєωιѕн people to keep the Law that He has given them." I was very upset and even moreso because I knew it was not an isolated incident. There are theologians and even bishops teaching that Jews are saved through the Old Covenant, so it is no wonder this heresy is being spread at the parish level. (Although I am still adding that parish to my "won't go there" list.)
The SSPX and trads in general have a much better grasp of what the Church really teaches about Jews than the average Catholic does. Another group that gets it right is the Association of Hebrew Catholics, a group of Catholics of Jєωιѕн ethnicity. Here is one of there position papers:
http://hebrewcatholic.org/FaithandTheology/Reflections-Covenant-Mission/catholicteaching.html
I think it must be common for Catholics who have converted from Judaism to realize just how important conversion is and to escape being fooled by this nonsense pervading the Church.
I cited a single specific article at this site which, like the SSPX, "gets it right" that Jews are in need of conversion and are not saved by being Jews. It was not a general recommendation of the organization.
Later, when I found out about some of their other positions I wrote:
I did not know that this group promotes celebrating Jєωιѕн holidays. Thanks for letting me know. I have been in a few debates on CAF explaining why Catholics should not participate in seders.
and, in another post:
They do "get it right" that Jews need to become Catholic, but I can see now that they get some other things wrong, like celebrating Jєωιѕн holidays. Thank you for telling me about this. I also did not like the preponderance of Vatican II (and later) quotes that I noticed at their site. It bugs me when people write as if the Church started 50 years ago.
I rejected the Jєωιѕн religion a long time ago when I first became a Christian. I do not keep kosher, celebrate Jєωιѕн holidays, have my sons circuмcised, etc. Judaism is a false religion that does not lead to salvation.
-
From Jaynek to everybody regarding Impy the tranny:
The point that you seem to be missing is that there is reason to think that this is not a "gentleman". God did not make Clare a male in the way that He normally makes males.
It is your opinion. You appear to be denying the existence of transsɛҳuąƖism, something which the Church recognizes.
In many cases, the reality of transsɛҳuąƖism is demonstrably a physiological abnormality. There is a Vatican instruction that treats it as different from ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. Your insistence on equating them is coming from you, not Church teaching.
TranssɛҳuąƖism is have a sense that one is other than the sex that one appears to be. Often there is a physiological basis for this sense
I have a friend who went from Christopher to Christine (which is how I picked up more information on this than most people know) and she really got into these things after she changed. I would ask her for make-up advice.
It is information that is not suitable for the general public.
The reason this docuмent was issued sub secretum is also the reason that people should not be judging Clare about this. She consulted with a priest. Nobody here is her spiritual director and a "trial by forum" is not appropriate.
All of Impy's posts show a practicing Catholic who accepts and obeys Church teaching, including that on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. I have never seen any reason to question her honesty or Catholicism.
Just think how shocking it would have been, if she had not gone through the sweet potato stage. At least this way we could get used to it gradually.
Leave. Just leave. It's posters like you that start the rot and decay of Catholicism. Got to your hebrewcatholic.org people. Just stay away from real Catholics.
You have taken a series of unrelated sentences from a variety of posts out of context and listed them. I am not sure how anyone is supposed to figure out my position from this. One thing that is missing from the list is a sentence that says "I approve of transsɛҳuąƖs." The reason such a sentence is not there is that it is not my position.
Only one person has the authority to tell me to leave this forum. That is Matthew. I suggest you take up the matter with him. If he wants to ban me for comments that I have made on another forum, I certainly respect his right to do that.
-
The Association for Hebrew Catholics. This is abhorrent Judaizing. The idea of keeping the demonic тαℓмυdic festivities sickens me. It's gross heresy. You are, then, a bloody marrano.
I do not keep Jєωιѕн holidays. I did not realize that AHC promoted this when I wrote about them.
As for the perverts, well, you consort with perverts (Christopher...Christine) and defend them. You refer to another pervert ('Impy') by his chosen 'name' and his, God forgive me, chosen 'sex'. Truly abhorrent. No Catholic can possibly 'support' someone chopping himself up with a knife so he can be buggered by another man!
Christopher/Christine was not a pervert. He/she had a chromosome abnormality and was neither XX nor XY. Yes, I defend people with medical conditions from being called perverts.
-
Btw, the way both she and Vox justify backing Impy's sex change is by claiming he was actually a woman born in a male body, so it isn't a sex change, just the correction of a birth defect. Despite the fact that brain scans of post mortem transsɛҳuąƖs showed results between male and female, NOT female; and since they were post mortem, you get into the nature vs nurture argument, among so many other good points there's no need to rehash.
I was not "backing Impy's sex change". I never claimed that "he was actually a woman born in a woman's body." I said that science was not yet conclusive either way on this sort of question.
-
Wow, SD doesn't allow people to use the term "neo-SSPX". Unbelievable!
That forum is so pathetic.
-
I was not "backing Impy's sex change". I never claimed that "he was actually a woman born in a woman's body." I said that science was not yet conclusive either way on this sort of question.
You might be able to forgive people for having that impression though. The science, as we currently understand it, seems conclusive. As you know I've studied many of these issues in depth for my licensing exams. And the fact that you and some other posters started referring to Impy as a "she" seems to imply that you accept his "transition" on some level.
From my point of view, referring to Impy as a woman or with feminine pronouns is nothing other than a bald-faced lie. He's a man, even if he did have himself surgically and pharmacalogically mutilated.
-
Jayne, you said those things?
Here is the comment I made about the Association of Hebrew Catholics in context:
There is a real problem in the Church around this topic. Just this week I was at a NO Mass and one of the prayers of the faithful was "That God may strengthen the Jєωιѕн people to keep the Law that He has given them." I was very upset and even moreso because I knew it was not an isolated incident. There are theologians and even bishops teaching that Jews are saved through the Old Covenant, so it is no wonder this heresy is being spread at the parish level. (Although I am still adding that parish to my "won't go there" list.)
The SSPX and trads in general have a much better grasp of what the Church really teaches about Jews than the average Catholic does. Another group that gets it right is the Association of Hebrew Catholics, a group of Catholics of Jєωιѕн ethnicity. Here is one of there position papers:
http://hebrewcatholic.org/FaithandTheology/Reflections-Covenant-Mission/catholicteaching.html
I think it must be common for Catholics who have converted from Judaism to realize just how important conversion is and to escape being fooled by this nonsense pervading the Church.
Later, when I found out about some of their other positions I wrote:
I did not know that this group promotes celebrating Jєωιѕн holidays. Thanks for letting me know. I have been in a few debates on CAF explaining why Catholics should not participate in seders.
and, in another post:
They do "get it right" that Jews need to become Catholic, but I can see now that they get some other things wrong, like celebrating Jєωιѕн holidays. Thank you for telling me about this. I also did not like the preponderance of Vatican II (and later) quotes that I noticed at their site. It bugs me when people write as if the Church started 50 years ago.
I rejected the Jєωιѕн religion a long time ago when I first became a Christian. I do not keep kosher, celebrate Jєωιѕн holidays, have my sons circuмcised, etc. Judaism is a false religion that does not lead to salvation.
Having said all that, greeted a new member on a different forum with this:
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2013, 07:09:AM »
Hi Chestertonian. Welcome to FE. As Impy said, I was raised Jєωιѕн too, so I can relate to some of what you have said about this. If you have not already discovered it, I recommend that you check out the Association of Hebrew Catholics. http://hebrewcatholic.org/ I am not posting much during Lent, but feel free to PM me any time. I check my PMs every day.
Then later in the day you come into our forum, read the posts, caught red handed.
Then you immediately go back, and at 2pm and write:
« Reply #10 on: Today at 02:06 PM »
I have discovered some things about the site I mentioned above such that I would no longer recommend it to anyone. It still might be interesting, but take it with a grain of salt.
You are oily and sly. You have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
Now it's 3 lies regarding just this topic....
Please leave and stay on SD or FE. They gladly have you while they ban the good members that call out snakes like you.
I'll be praying for you. For a real conversion. Desist with your hebrewcatholic.org crap.
-
I was not "backing Impy's sex change". I never claimed that "he was actually a woman born in a woman's body." I said that science was not yet conclusive either way on this sort of question.
You might be able to forgive people for having that impression though. The science, as we currently understand it, seems conclusive. As you know I've studied many of these issues in depth for my licensing exams. And the fact that you and some other posters started referring to Impy as a "she" seems to imply that you accept his "transition" on some level.
From my point of view, referring to Impy as a woman or with feminine pronouns is nothing other than a bald-faced lie. He's a man, even if he did have himself surgically and pharmacalogically mutilated.
Yes, for anyone paying attention, there is always a misstep between words and actions. Jayne you were a bit more conservative about the birth defect part than Vox was and when pressed, you stick to the claim that the evidence is "inconclusive". However, your actions are conclusive. You call him Clare and use feminine pronouns and during the discussion leaned heavily on those quotes exfish brought up, repeating that there are real physiological conditions out there, a fact that no one debated. The debate was does HE suffer from them and the facts as he revealed them were that he does not. Nor is there Church teaching that allows us to go along with it.
This chameleon effect from forum to forum and day to day is chronic and dishonest. It's largely why I am not active on SD. I think a few people have tried to warn KK and although there seems to be some sort of "arrangement" it's just not enough for me. It's distracting at best.
My favorite from not long ago was one day you said you think +Williamson is very disobedient and within 24-48 hours, maybe even the same dang day!you were "defending" him from someone calling him names, saying you consider him to be quite holy.
:stare: Someone who is quite holy isn't also very disobedient. I almost had more respect for the person calling him names, at least they were consistent in their position!
-
I was not "backing Impy's sex change". I never claimed that "he was actually a woman born in a woman's body." I said that science was not yet conclusive either way on this sort of question.
You might be able to forgive people for having that impression though. The science, as we currently understand it, seems conclusive. As you know I've studied many of these issues in depth for my licensing exams. And the fact that you and some other posters started referring to Impy as a "she" seems to imply that you accept his "transition" on some level.
From my point of view, referring to Impy as a woman or with feminine pronouns is nothing other than a bald-faced lie. He's a man, even if he did have himself surgically and pharmacalogically mutilated.
I understand that people disagree with me and have a low opinion of me and I do not hold this against them.
There is no Church teaching that says what pronouns we ought to use with people who have had sex changes. In the absence of such teaching, we have to figure it out for ourselves. I did my best. I also asked my spiritual director and he said it was OK to use feminine pronouns in this case.
-
Having said all that, greeted a new member on a different forum with this:
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2013, 07:09:AM »
Hi Chestertonian. Welcome to FE. As Impy said, I was raised Jєωιѕн too, so I can relate to some of what you have said about this. If you have not already discovered it, I recommend that you check out the Association of Hebrew Catholics. http://hebrewcatholic.org/ I am not posting much during Lent, but feel free to PM me any time. I check my PMs every day.
Then later in the day you come into our forum, read the posts, caught red handed.
Then you immediately go back, and at 2pm and write:
« Reply #10 on: Today at 02:06 PM »
I have discovered some things about the site I mentioned above such that I would no longer recommend it to anyone. It still might be interesting, but take it with a grain of salt.
You are oily and sly. You have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
Now it's 3 lies regarding just this topic....
Please leave and stay on SD or FE. They gladly have you while they ban the good members that call out snakes like you.
I'll be praying for you. For a real conversion. Desist with your hebrewcatholic.org crap.
I had forgotten that I had recommended that site to anyone. Once I was reminded, I tried to repair my mistake. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this.
Thank you for your prayers.
-
There is no Church teaching that says what pronouns we ought to use with people who have had sex changes.
But there is Church teaching which tells us to be truthful in our words and deeds - Our Lord was very clear on this too. Impy is a man and it's untruthful to claim otherwise.
This is exactly why I left FE. I refuse to lie and/or submit to the lie that Vox and Impy have foisted on that sad forum.
I did my best. I also asked my spiritual director and he said it was OK to use feminine pronouns in this case.
I don't think you have any malicious intent, but obviously I think you're wrong. I also believe that this priest was wrong and misguided to have given you the advice that he did. I assure you that I could find many priests who would disagree with him on this matter...and both sides can't be right.
-
This chameleon effect from forum to forum and day to day is chronic and dishonest. It's largely why I am not active on SD. I think a few people have tried to warn KK and although there seems to be some sort of "arrangement" it's just not enough for me. It's distracting at best.
KK does not allow me to discuss the transsɛҳuąƖism topic on SD and I obey him. I know that I will be banned if I break any rules or say anything against Catholic teaching. I dare say he allows me to post because he knows that he has me under control.
Similarly, Matthew allows me to post here. I am not sure what difference people are seeing in these situations.
-
There is no Church teaching that says what pronouns we ought to use with people who have had sex changes.
But there is Church teaching which tells us to be truthful in our words and deeds - Our Lord was very clear on this too. Impy is a man and it's untruthful to claim otherwise.
This is exactly why I left FE. I refuse to lie and/or submit to the lie that Vox and Impy have foisted on that sad forum.
I did my best. I also asked my spiritual director and he said it was OK to use feminine pronouns in this case.
I don't think you have any malicious intent, but obviously I think you're wrong. I also believe that this priest was wrong and misguided to have given you the advice that he did. I assure you that I could find many priests who would disagree with him on this matter...and both sides can't be right.
It is possible that I am wrong so I cannot hold it against you for thinking so. Thank you for acknowledging that I do not have any malicious intent.
Unfortunately, it is usually possible to find a priest who will say anything. However, this is not a priest that I sought out because I thought he would support me on this. It is my usual spiritual director whom I respect and trust (partly because he says the TLM and partly because he has given me good advice in the past). I do not want to second guess him.
-
Having said all that, greeted a new member on a different forum with this:
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2013, 07:09:AM »
Hi Chestertonian. Welcome to FE. As Impy said, I was raised Jєωιѕн too, so I can relate to some of what you have said about this. If you have not already discovered it, I recommend that you check out the Association of Hebrew Catholics. http://hebrewcatholic.org/ I am not posting much during Lent, but feel free to PM me any time. I check my PMs every day.
Then later in the day you come into our forum, read the posts, caught red handed.
Then you immediately go back, and at 2pm and write:
« Reply #10 on: Today at 02:06 PM »
I have discovered some things about the site I mentioned above such that I would no longer recommend it to anyone. It still might be interesting, but take it with a grain of salt.
You are oily and sly. You have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
Now it's 3 lies regarding just this topic....
Please leave and stay on SD or FE. They gladly have you while they ban the good members that call out snakes like you.
I'll be praying for you. For a real conversion. Desist with your hebrewcatholic.org crap.
I had forgotten that I had recommended that site to anyone. Once I was reminded, I tried to repair my mistake. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this.
Thank you for your prayers.
But that's part of the problem. You recommended it on FE just a week after people pointed out problems with it on SD. From Feb 24th to Mar 3rd. Its issues would have been fresh in your mind then. Maybe you needed more time to realize they had problems, I'd give that benefit of the doubt. But to be honest you seemed familiar with them, not like you just googled them that day thereby making a mistake you later regretted.
Again, I don't know them so my main issue here isn't that you recommended them. It's the shiftiness. When someone calls you out here about promoting them, your answer isn't "Yes I did but I have changed my position." It's "No, I don't, you're misrepresenting me." Of course making that person out to be a liar, UNTIL someone pulls up proof, then we get the truth, that you in fact did/do recommend them, whatever the case may be. AND you recommended them outside of the particular context that you tried to say was being misrepresented.
It's just always shifting sands with you. If it happened once in a while it would be normal because it does happen to everyone. We change, we progress or regress, we misunderstand each other, we forget things, we're unsure of our position and contradict ourselves until we figure out what to stick with, it happens. But the miscommunication to the point of suspicion and distrust in your case is so overwhelming, it is not normal. Nor can it be chalked up to or laughed off as a simple personality quirk like you try to do. Oh I know people don't like me, haha. There's something truly off. It's not limited to a certain forum, to any stripe of trad or to any clique. And it's been years. The usual time it takes for people to get to know each other a bit better is passed yet it still doesn't help. It actually makes it worse.
Unless there's a severe communication problem (autism? I'm grasping at straws), I don't know what else it could be but a deep abiding dishonesty. God forgive me if I'm picking on you unjustly. I'm just at a loss at how improbable it is that such pervading issues could be innocent.
-
Unless there's a severe communication problem (autism? I'm grasping at straws), I don't know what else it could be but a deep abiding dishonesty.
I have Asperger's, which is a form of high-functioning autism. I won't speak for Jayne, but Aspies (and auties in general) are honest to the point of outright bluntness, if nothing else.
-
Unless there's a severe communication problem (autism? I'm grasping at straws), I don't know what else it could be but a deep abiding dishonesty.
I have Asperger's, which is a form of high-functioning autism. I won't speak for Jayne, but Aspies (and auties in general) are honest to the point of outright bluntness, if nothing else.
Yeah, I can't deny that I've thought about this and grasped at straws for some other explanation than malice. I'm not trying to be offensive and I realize I am probably way out of line, but there's only one other person I have met online that I felt this kind of block with where no matter what was said, the miscommunication got worse and it descended into nit-picking every word, so that kind of led my thoughts this way. (I think he might have aspergers too, not autism, I'm not sure) Once I got to understand him by his own parameters, not the "typical" parameters, then I was much more able to appreciate him and know how to read his posts for more favorable discussions. So I don't know, am I supposed to read Jayne differently and just accept that's it's not going to be "typical" or do I admit that it could actually be malice and avoid like the plague? It can be confusing when you try to give the benefit of the doubt.
-
But that's part of the problem. You recommended it on FE just a week after people pointed out problems with it on SD. From Feb 24th to Mar 3rd. Its issues would have been fresh in your mind then. Maybe you needed more time to realize they had problems, I'd give that benefit of the doubt. But to be honest you seemed familiar with them, not like you just googled them that day thereby making a mistake you later regretted.
The problems pointed out at the time did not seem serious to me. It was not until the most recent thread about it that I became convinced it had serious problems. I did think that I was familiar with this group because I think that they published a pamphlet on Edith Stein that I found very moving when I read it years ago. I understood that this group was working and praying for the conversion of Jews so I thought they were good. I only just found out about their possible Judaizing tendencies.
Again, I don't know them so my main issue here isn't that you recommended them. It's the shiftiness. When someone calls you out here about promoting them, your answer isn't "Yes I did but I have changed my position." It's "No, I don't, you're misrepresenting me." Of course making that person out to be a liar, UNTIL someone pulls up proof, then we get the truth, that you in fact did/do recommend them, whatever the case may be. AND you recommended them outside of the particular context that you tried to say was being misrepresented.
I had completely forgotten that I had recommended it to someone until you reminded me. My comments were wrong and unfair to the person I claimed was misrepresenting me. I am sorry and I apologize.
It's just always shifting sands with you. If it happened once in a while it would be normal because it does happen to everyone. We change, we progress or regress, we misunderstand each other, we forget things, we're unsure of our position and contradict ourselves until we figure out what to stick with, it happens. But the miscommunication to the point of suspicion and distrust in your case is so overwhelming, it is not normal. Nor can it be chalked up to or laughed off as a simple personality quirk like you try to do. Oh I know people don't like me, haha. There's something truly off. It's not limited to a certain forum, to any stripe of trad or to any clique. And it's been years. The usual time it takes for people to get to know each other a bit better is passed yet it still doesn't help. It actually makes it worse.
Unless there's a severe communication problem (autism? I'm grasping at straws), I don't know what else it could be but a deep abiding dishonesty. God forgive me if I'm picking on you unjustly. I'm just at a loss at how improbable it is that such pervading issues could be innocent.
I am never deliberately dishonest. I am not aware of shifting my position. Maybe I do it without realizing it. Please pray for me.
-
Unless there's a severe communication problem (autism? I'm grasping at straws), I don't know what else it could be but a deep abiding dishonesty.
I have Asperger's, which is a form of high-functioning autism. I won't speak for Jayne, but Aspies (and auties in general) are honest to the point of outright bluntness, if nothing else.
Yeah, I can't deny that I've thought about this and grasped at straws for some other explanation than malice. I'm not trying to be offensive and I realize I am probably way out of line, but there's only one other person I have met online that I felt this kind of block with where no matter what was said, the miscommunication got worse and it descended into nit-picking every word, so that kind of led my thoughts this way. (I think he might have aspergers too, not autism, I'm not sure) Once I got to understand him by his own parameters, not the "typical" parameters, then I was much more able to appreciate him and know how to read his posts for more favorable discussions. So I don't know, am I supposed to read Jayne differently and just accept that's it's not going to be "typical" or do I admit that it could actually be malice and avoid like the plague? It can be confusing when you try to give the benefit of the doubt.
I have never been diagnosed with Asperger's or anything that would affect my communication. I am not acting from malice but there is no way for me to prove that.
-
Well I guess we're back to square one then. I have to heed the distrust but I do ask for forgiveness if it is unjust. I probably will not know in this life.
-
Well I guess we're back to square one then. I have to heed the distrust but I do ask for forgiveness if it is unjust. I probably will not know in this life.
I do forgive you and I appreciate that you attempted to give me the benefit of the doubt.
At least it gives me an opportunity to work on developing humility which is something I need very much.
O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being loved...
From the desire of being extolled ...
From the desire of being honored ...
From the desire of being praised ...
From the desire of being preferred to others...
From the desire of being consulted ...
From the desire of being approved ...
From the fear of being humiliated ...
From the fear of being despised...
From the fear of suffering rebukes ...
From the fear of being calumniated ...
From the fear of being forgotten ...
From the fear of being ridiculed ...
From the fear of being wronged ...
From the fear of being suspected ...
That others may be loved more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I ...
That, in the opinion of the world,
others may increase and I may decrease ...
That others may be chosen and I set aside ...
That others may be praised and I unnoticed ...
That others may be preferred to me in everything...
That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should…
-
On SD, I'm pretty sure GottmitunsAlex and tmw pass. I wasn't surprised to learn today that tmw is stepping down as moderator over on SD. He's undoubtedly bothered by Kaesekopf's feminism, among other things.
Maybe Hawaii Five-O as well. He's definitely anti-Jєωιѕн, and seems to be anti-feminist. I don't think being married to a nonwhite should necessary dispose one towards embracing today's PC race politics. I'd like to think that were I married to a nonwhite I would still have politically incorrect views on race.
He said recently that he only just became aware of this forum.
Heinrich might be an exception as well.
Would JoeVoxxPop from FE fit the bill?
Maybe.
-
You aren't being honest whenever you defend FE or SD, Jaynek.
Exactly what are you claiming was dishonest? Anything that I have ever posted was something I believed to be true. You might have disagreed with it, but that does not make something dishonest.
It is dishonest to support Vox and FE despite all the immorality that goes on there. Yet every time there's a thread here against FishEaters, you take up for it.
She takes up for CathInfo on FE as well, and does the same on SD. It's part of her schtick.
-
I am never deliberately dishonest. I am not aware of shifting my position. Maybe I do it without realizing it. Please pray for me.
The personality trait or habit seems to be one of appeasing others and attempting to be...well, a mother, to everyone. This won't work unless others view their relationship with you as you do.
That is my personal assessment which you can take as you will.
For those who did not see specific issues about this forum being discussed, the primary issue that I see is that on CathInfo many interactions treat the Church as a human political organization, to the extent that some people accuse others of error merely for not having the same view.
I learned in the beginning of this thread that Ben is here. Greetings Ben. I was Pæniteo. You waited on SD until you were banned, eh?
For forums in general, they require a social element to be active, and they are all at risk of that social element taking priority.
-
Yeah, I can't deny that I've thought about this and grasped at straws for some other explanation than malice. I'm not trying to be offensive and I realize I am probably way out of line, but there's only one other person I have met online that I felt this kind of block with where no matter what was said, the miscommunication got worse and it descended into nit-picking every word, so that kind of led my thoughts this way. (I think he might have aspergers too, not autism, I'm not sure) Once I got to understand him by his own parameters, not the "typical" parameters, then I was much more able to appreciate him and know how to read his posts for more favorable discussions.
For perspective, consider that ASD results in the same issues in both directions.
As you probably saw the other person showing certain traits, that person would see similar traits in you. The more the other attempted to communicate clearly, the more vague you probably seemed to get. The more the other person tried to focus on the topic, the more you probably seemed to focus on the person.
And personally, when people react to things which were not explicitly stated, it looks like normal people have severe mental illness and hallucinations. ASD communication is usually simple and formal and explicit, and nothing else is used, but those who expect more subtle communication, cannot help but see it.
If I happen to be the "one other person", I do not remember any interactions which had problems and my response above is a general observation. If I am not that one other person, my observation may be accurate to various degrees for others, but we are not all exactly the same.
So I don't know, am I supposed to read Jayne differently and just accept that's it's not going to be "typical" or do I admit that it could actually be malice and avoid like the plague? It can be confusing when you try to give the benefit of the doubt.
We do not know the hearts of others, so we can give the benefit of the doubt to everyone. However, we should also avoid futile discourse. The trick is finding out where further discussion is indeed futile.
I have found that most discussion is futile, so there is very little to be lost by avoiding others (as a group or individually).
-
I am never deliberately dishonest. I am not aware of shifting my position. Maybe I do it without realizing it. Please pray for me.
The personality trait or habit seems to be one of appeasing others and attempting to be...well, a mother, to everyone. This won't work unless others view their relationship with you as you do.
That is insightful of you. So many posters are the ages of my children that I do find myself often having maternal feelings toward them. It does not surprise me that it comes out in my posts. I think you are also right about me having a tendency to appease others.
-
I learned in the beginning of this thread that Ben is here. Greetings Ben. I was Pæniteo. You waited on SD until you were banned, eh?
Hi Ros!
You should delete that "I am not on this forum" bit in your signature.
-
I learned in the beginning of this thread that Ben is here. Greetings Ben. I was Pæniteo. You waited on SD until you were banned, eh?
Hi Ros!
You should delete that "I am not on this forum" bit in your signature.
That is intended to indicate that I am "not on this forum" when I am not, which is most of the time. Often, I get personal messages, and I am not around when they come. I sometimes spend a few days using this forum regularly, and then forget about it for a few weeks or more. I think I have to reword it. I'll do that later.
-
You should set up your account to not receive PMs, but only email.
-
Yeah, I can't deny that I've thought about this and grasped at straws for some other explanation than malice. I'm not trying to be offensive and I realize I am probably way out of line, but there's only one other person I have met online that I felt this kind of block with where no matter what was said, the miscommunication got worse and it descended into nit-picking every word, so that kind of led my thoughts this way. (I think he might have aspergers too, not autism, I'm not sure) Once I got to understand him by his own parameters, not the "typical" parameters, then I was much more able to appreciate him and know how to read his posts for more favorable discussions.
For perspective, consider that ASD results in the same issues in both directions.
As you probably saw the other person showing certain traits, that person would see similar traits in you. The more the other attempted to communicate clearly, the more vague you probably seemed to get. The more the other person tried to focus on the topic, the more you probably seemed to focus on the person.
And personally, when people react to things which were not explicitly stated, it looks like normal people have severe mental illness and hallucinations. ASD communication is usually simple and formal and explicit, and nothing else is used, but those who expect more subtle communication, cannot help but see it.
Yes, this is what I finally came to realize.
If I happen to be the "one other person", I do not remember any interactions which had problems and my response above is a general observation. If I am not that one other person, my observation may be accurate to various degrees for others, but we are not all exactly the same.
Yes you were the other person but there are a few here who are vicious towards you as it is so I wasn't going to name you if it could potentially makes things worse for you. I had difficulty getting along with you for a little while, (and if you don't remember, that is good!) but once I was mentally trained to read your posts at strict face value, not taking anything else into account or reading between the lines, like you mention above, it really helped. If there's something I still don't understand after a few clarifications, I just let it go.
So I don't know, am I supposed to read Jayne differently and just accept that's it's not going to be "typical" or do I admit that it could actually be malice and avoid like the plague? It can be confusing when you try to give the benefit of the doubt.
We do not know the hearts of others, so we can give the benefit of the doubt to everyone. However, we should also avoid futile discourse. The trick is finding out where further discussion is indeed futile.
I have found that most discussion is futile, so there is very little to be lost by avoiding others (as a group or individually).
Indeed.
-
Yes you were the other person but there are a few here who are vicious towards you as it is so I wasn't going to name you if it could potentially makes things worse for you.
Knowing I have Autism Spectrum Disorder does not really aid others in their personal abuse of me, although, it if they choose to use it, they end up being malicious to other people who have it as a whole. But it usually interferes with discussion as people attribute things to it without reason and do not understand it. That is why I do not think it is worth public revelation most of the time.
People become incredibly awkward when they learn a person has it, as they do not know how to act, and they are sure they have to act some way. EDIT: For those reading, just treat people with ASD like people, with the understanding that use of language may be slightly different, essentially, like a person who is speaking a second language and from a different culture. It is not necessary to understand another in depth, as long as one can discuss the topic.
At this point in my life, it does not really affect me at all. I have a vocation which does not require extensive personal interaction, and there may be particular differences with me, morally, they are more or less the same as everybody else, even if they may appear slightly different.
I had difficulty getting along with you for a little while, (and if you don't remember, that is good!) but once I was mentally trained to read your posts at strict face value, not taking anything else into account or reading between the lines, like you mention above, it really helped. If there's something I still don't understand after a few clarifications, I just let it go.
I do not remember. I hope it wasn't too trying for you.
If you see anything which is potentially morally misleading or in error, please let me know.
I do not plan on using this forum much. It does not offer me anything, and I am prone to wasting time.
-
I have Asperger's, which is a form of high-functioning autism. I won't speak for Jayne, but Aspies (and auties in general) are honest to the point of outright bluntness, if nothing else.
I also have Aspergers, and this is very true. I prefer directness and often I am considered to be quite blunt.
-
My friend's husband as Aspergers. They are like night and day conversation wise..she is ALWAYS the center of attention and you will crack a rib laughing if around her for 30 seconds. Not Catholic but a very kind homeschool family. They know I'm single and took us out to dinner for Valentine's Day. <3
-
I have Asperger's, which is a form of high-functioning autism. I won't speak for Jayne, but Aspies (and auties in general) are honest to the point of outright bluntness, if nothing else.
I also have Aspergers, and this is very true. I prefer directness and often I am considered to be quite blunt.
Directness is a good thing SOS.
-
I have Asperger's, which is a form of high-functioning autism. I won't speak for Jayne, but Aspies (and auties in general) are honest to the point of outright bluntness, if nothing else.
I also have Aspergers, and this is very true. I prefer directness and often I am considered to be quite blunt.
Directness is a good thing SOS.
Sometimes it gets me into trouble. However, you will ALWAYS know where you stand with me. :laugh1:
-
Sometimes it gets me into trouble. However, you will ALWAYS know where you stand with me. :laugh1:
Hope you don't mind people downthumbing you. I'm getting used to it. :dancing-banana:
-
I have a family with Asperger's and when he was 4 yrs old the "experts" said he would be a garbage man or a serial killer when he grew up.
No, he became a traditional Catholic!!!!!! :applause: :applause: :applause:
-
SD's mods just announced today that they will have their own "radio show".
They had been talking for several days of a big announcement, though I wouldn't have expected anything like that. Not good that this liberal forum is getting its own radio show.
-
Is that so?
It is not a new idea. Before I fell out of favor with them, we talked about it over there a few months ago.
I don't think that the idea of traditional Catholic radio by laymen really works as such. You need guests. What Mr Heiner does works because he has guests (there are other reasons too, but this is the main one IMO).
I was thinking to myself 'what kind of guests could they get?' and it occurred to me that Bishop Fellay would probably love to talk to them. They could discuss prudence and kindness and the dangers of polemics!
-
Guests are planned.
-
Will you have a five second delay so that you can go *beeep* anytime someone says neo-sspx?
-
Will you have a five second delay so that you can go *beeep* anytime someone says neo-sspx?
You're still hung up on that?
-
Is that so?
It is not a new idea. Before I fell out of favor with them, we talked about it over there a few months ago.
I don't think that the idea of traditional Catholic radio by laymen really works as such. You need guests. What Mr Heiner does works because he has guests (there are other reasons too, but this is the main one IMO).
I was thinking to myself 'what kind of guests could they get?' and it occurred to me that Bishop Fellay would probably love to talk to them. They could discuss prudence and kindness and the dangers of polemics!
So should I take from this that you find prudence to be bad and polemics to be good?
-
I just want to say it has not been fun to watch you guys on the outs.
-
I'm going to tune in.
-
Will you have a five second delay so that you can go *beeep* anytime someone says neo-sspx?
You're still hung up on that?
No, just pointing out that your audience and content is going to be fairly predetermined considering that you won't touch what is the most significant series of news events in the traditional Catholic world (the betrayal of the neo-sspx).
-
Will you have a five second delay so that you can go *beeep* anytime someone says neo-sspx?
You're still hung up on that?
Yeah, well, it's sort of like AQ censoring the word "sedevacantist" all those years. It's really childish.
The fact that SD doesn't allow the term "Neo-SSPX" indicates that the forum isn't as pro-Williamson as you all try to portray it.
-
Will you have a five second delay so that you can go *beeep* anytime someone says neo-sspx?
You're still hung up on that?
Yeah, well, it's sort of like AQ censoring the word "sedevacantist" all those years. It's really childish.
The fact that SD doesn't allow the term "Neo-SSPX" indicates that the forum isn't as pro-Williamson as you all try to portray it.
It's not as pro-Williamson as you'd like it to be, no. That's not really a secret. Of course, that gets spun into some nonsense about the forum disliking +Williamson, which also isn't the case.
-
Will you have a five second delay so that you can go *beeep* anytime someone says neo-sspx?
You're still hung up on that?
No, just pointing out that your audience and content is going to be fairly predetermined considering that you won't touch what is the most significant series of news events in the traditional Catholic world (the betrayal of the neo-sspx).
Won't touch those events or haven't agreed with you about those events? We've had more than one thread on the topic with varying opinions. You didn't get warned because you disagreed with +Fellay or were pro +Williamson. In fact, you didn't even get warned for saying that the SSPX had dropped the ball and were no longer fulfilling the vision of +Lefebvre. You got warned for using a name for the Society that we thought impaired rather than strengthened the discussion. You make it out to be as if we asked you to do something immoral or to compromise your beliefs, but that wasn't the case at all.
-
Will you have a five second delay so that you can go *beeep* anytime someone says neo-sspx?
You're still hung up on that?
No, just pointing out that your audience and content is going to be fairly predetermined considering that you won't touch what is the most significant series of news events in the traditional Catholic world (the betrayal of the neo-sspx).
Won't touch those events or haven't agreed with you about those events? We've had more than one thread on the topic with varying opinions. You didn't get warned because you disagreed with +Fellay or were pro +Williamson. In fact, you didn't even get warned for saying that the SSPX had dropped the ball and were no longer fulfilling the vision of +Lefebvre. You got warned for using a name for the Society that we thought impaired rather than strengthened the discussion. You make it out to be as if we asked you to do something immoral or to compromise your beliefs, but that wasn't the case at all.
None of the staff have touched it (it is the staff who are running the radio show, is it not?). Never when they had their own questions satisfied, or when they were asked questions directly.
You didn't warn me for pointing out that Fellay is dropping the ball-- nor did you warn the resident feminist for being a feminist or the resident liberals for being resident liberals. SD is very tolerant. That is not news to me.
I'm not really sure what your point is, so I'm not going to give you a thesis or anything. Except that it is well known and discernible that your staff has shown little to no interest in the destruction of the SSPX, the largest and most successful traditional fraternity in the world. With the exception of Bonaventure acknowledging the betrayal re: the AFD, the Catholic Resistance is met with dissent-- and not just by users.
-
Will you have a five second delay so that you can go *beeep* anytime someone says neo-sspx?
You're still hung up on that?
Yeah, well, it's sort of like AQ censoring the word "sedevacantist" all those years. It's really childish.
The fact that SD doesn't allow the term "Neo-SSPX" indicates that the forum isn't as pro-Williamson as you all try to portray it.
It's not as pro-Williamson as you'd like it to be, no. That's not really a secret. Of course, that gets spun into some nonsense about the forum disliking +Williamson, which also isn't the case.
In other words, it's pro-Fellay. That's quite obvious.
-
I don't understand why you guys are arguing?
I go to a FSSP parish. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson are heroes of mine. I respect but don't believe the sede position. I can understand the resistance. I like the SSPX point of view.
I frankly don't see how arguing about minutae is going to further the cause?
On the other hand, it makes for entertaining and educational reading. So carry on.
-
I don't understand why you guys are arguing?
I go to a FSSP parish. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson are heroes of mine. I respect but don't believe the sede position. I can understand the resistance. I like the SSPX point of view.
I frankly don't see how arguing about minutae is going to further the cause?
On the other hand, it makes for entertaining and educational reading. So carry on.
Bishop Fellay's views are much different than Archbishop Lefebvre's or Bishop Williamson's.
-
Won't touch those events or haven't agreed with you about those events? We've had more than one thread on the topic with varying opinions. You didn't get warned because you disagreed with +Fellay or were pro +Williamson. In fact, you didn't even get warned for saying that the SSPX had dropped the ball and were no longer fulfilling the vision of +Lefebvre. You got warned for using a name for the Society that we thought impaired rather than strengthened the discussion. You make it out to be as if we asked you to do something immoral or to compromise your beliefs, but that wasn't the case at all.
This was a great post, Walty. I tried to give it a thumbs up but for some reason it did not work.
-
Hey Jaynek, I tried to give your post a thumbs down. Fortunately it worked.
-
Hey Jaynek, I tried to give your post a thumbs down,. Fortunately it worked.
:laugh2:
-
Very witty Serves, Very very witty!
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: