Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

(Edited)

I've learned a sizeable chunk of my knowledge of Catholic tradition in Catholic forums.  Met quite a few interesting, helpful ladies and gentlemen.

I'm far from perfect, but I have a few thoughts.  Maybe they will ring true for you. 

Is it just me, doesnt it seem like the forums are devolving more and more?   Not entirely.  But it seems almost like expressing one's opinion alone is considered making an argument or makes for a lively discussion.  Each taking his turn to intellectually masturbate (yes I said masturbate), stroking the ego, getting off on simply saying or suggesting "Incorrect.  No.  You are wrong." 

I mean, if you want anyone to take you seriously, spend a few calories trying to convince the other why they should hold your view as passionately as you do.  I mean if you hold something passionately to be true, dont ya wanta make some effort to convince the other person to also?

Its as if people often do not actually read eachothers posts like you would anything else.  Posts are skimmed for that one word or sentence that jumps out as strange or foreign and then bam, they're wrong, heretical, poorly catechized, stupid.

If you ARE going to make an argument, it must meet the rigorous standards of a thesis committee.  You must align all your major and minor premises with the most fluid and perfect syllogistic accuracy, or I'm not listening. 

And what is it with the anti-traditionalists making trad forums their powwow hangout?  Circling the trads with their enlightened wisdom.  I understand their gripes and distaste for Tridentine, Thomistic piety.  But its like a bunch of novus ordo Catholics crashing a post-Latin Mass trad potluck and acting like it's their party.

And the censors.  On the look out for dangerous freethinkers.  And anything that doesn't fit the groupthink.  A Tridentine Mass said in English?  Who are you, are you really one of us?  You just said something nice about Pope Francis.  Red flag!  You like Pope Michael?  Well then you must be living in your parents basement.

Censorship, imo, scares off many potentially interesting posters.

We could be having a lot more lively, creative, fruitful, and fun conversations if we'd listen to eachother and be slow to judge.  NOBODY is more Catholic, or Traditional, or Catechized, or having "The Right Ideas," by virtue of forum posts in an internet forum under a username.   

We are all people, not just usernames.  At the same time we only know about eachother by what is said in posts. 

And everybody here has the right to be an armchair theologian if they want to because it's fun to use and share what you know, as long as you dont think you are more than that, a self-appointed online Professional Theologian Authority, who MUST be listened to by virtue of that self-appointed authority.  Otherwise, back up your knowledge with facts and references, if not then use qualifiers like "From what I've read...in my understanding...what I learned."  Dont say things like "If you were actually educated and well read in Catholic Tradition (like me), and can read the Summa in Latin, French, and Italian (like me), you wouldnt make such a blatantly ignorant comment." 

Someone starts a thread about a specific subject.  Stick to the subject.  Dont derail it.  Please.  Dont like it, then don't post in it, or if its really objectionable, report to moderator.  Read what the person says.  Did they say something odd?  Ask them for clarity before going on a rashly judging witchhunt.  Answer their questions back. 

Oh and ask questions.  To me when people dispute eachother without asking eachother questions--literal, rhetorical, or otherwise--odds are it becomes each person taking his turn to pleasure themselves intellectually.

Dare eachother. Dont read minds.  Be civil but real.  Be charitable but rock the boat a bit.  Make fun of yourself.  Believe the other person. 

Ok I've said my peace.  Thanks KK for this hangout.  I love all of you, even those of you thinking right now I have a beef with them.  I have no beef with any individual.  God speed.

Typo: Discissions in Catholic Forums

Just providing a case in point!  :D  Now you can get me back with "what are you talking about", after fixing it. ;)  (it doesn't bother me, it just seemed like an opportunity for humor)

I generally agree with you Chris, although I would have put it more gently.  But that's just me, and maybe your way is better -  definitely more courageous.

Have to judge other posters as kindly as we can.  Sometimes things come across as uncharitable when they are really meant to help (e.g. dealing with the scrupulous, etc).     Sometimes "that is just the way people are" (e.g. brusque by nature or by vice), and it's not a matter of their carelessly taking advantage of writing on a forum to be rude.

Quote from: Non Nobis on August 12, 2017, 02:51:41 PM
Typo: Discissions in Catholic Forums

Just providing a case in point!  :D  Now you can get me back with "what are you talking about", after fixing it. ;)  (it doesn't bother me, it just seemed like an opportunity for humor)

I generally agree with you Chris, although I would have put it more gently.  But that's just me, and maybe your way is better -  definitely more courageous.

Have to judge other posters as kindly as we can.  Sometimes things come across as uncharitable when they are really meant to help (e.g. dealing with the scrupulous, etc).     Sometimes "that is just the way pe :shrug:ople are" (e.g. brusque by nature or by vice), and it's not a matter of their carelessly taking advantage of writing on a forum to be rude.

Shoot.  Tried editing the title.   :shrug: 

So...WHY do you "generally agree?"  I double dog dare you.  :D
 

I was able to edit the subject line in this reply, so I think you should be able to similarly edit the OP.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdL8dizd98M[/yt]

I give you the 70 page Fatima thread as Exhibit A.

In all seriousness, I agree with your points and find many of the behaviors you list to be huge turn-offs.

Been thinking about this Chris. I find it true that a forum conversation has much less use of good manners than a round table discussion after Mass in the church basement. To a degree I understand this. Making a hurried step into a thread and throwing up a quick reaction to a post, is ripe for thoughtless, unbridled irritation or a chastisement for what may appear to be a poorly stated or uninformed post. Even worse,  if their opinion is not supported by documentation or expounded upon by a church father, for example, a poster is immedistely put on defense. Even if they happen to understand that they said stupid, they've been hit from so many sides they dont have a chance to regroup and take another stab at it. Maybe that is the nature of a forum. I don't know, but I do know its not the nature of conversation. I have very little experience with forums, but it seems good manners are not required in these short sharp exchanges. Nobody wants to complain, or worse, be seen as a special snowflake, so the attacker gets a bye, especially so if they are seen as an authority on all things Catholic. People really do say the dumbest things, myself included. But hopefully I say less stupid than I do at least neutral, and so do most people.

But...all that being said, I love the spontaneous character of a forum, and would hate to lose that due to rules demanding polite, never unkind or offensive responses. The spontaneous responses, are what makes a forum seem like conversation. Does that make sense? We are conversing, minus the typical social graces you'll find at a potluck, or coffee and donuts. Maybe we could at least leave the sting of personal attack out of a disagreement. Or be more careful to treat one another with a bit more dignity, apply the benefit of the doubt as to a poster's intent. Even a heated discussion can be less personal, but on topic. Yes, we are a passionate people. I love that about traditional Catholics. And yes, we are warriors for the truth. St. Joan of Arc had many confrontations and corrections to make for the sake of truth, but nowhere does that lead one to deduce that she did so without also employing charity. Is this too girly, or too much to expect for a forum? I ask with sincerity. I want to know if I'm missing something or if this is truly this way on forums. Regardless, I love this forum and if it never changes for the better, I will continue to enjoy it, but there are times.....

Quote from: Carleendiane on August 12, 2017, 09:37:58 PM
Been thinking about this Chris. I find it true that a forum conversation has much less use of good manners than a round table discussion after Mass in the church basement. To a degree I understand this. Making a hurried step into a thread and throwing up a quick reaction to a post, is ripe for thoughtless, unbridled irritation or a chastisement for what may appear to be a poorly stated or uninformed post. Even worse,  if their opinion is not supported by documentation or expounded upon by a church father, for example, a poster is immedistely put on defense. Even if they happen to understand that they said stupid, they've been hit from so many sides they dont have a chance to regroup and take another stab at it. Maybe that is the nature of a forum. I don't know, but I do know its not the nature of conversation. I have very little experience with forums, but it seems good manners are not required in these short sharp exchanges. Nobody wants to complain, or worse, be seen as a special snowflake, so the attacker gets a bye, especially so if they are seen as an authority on all things Catholic. People really do say the dumbest things, myself included. But hopefully I say less stupid than I do at least neutral, and so do most people.

But...all that being said, I love the spontaneous character of a forum, and would hate to lose that due to rules demanding polite, never unkind or offensive responses. The spontaneous responses, are what makes a forum seem like conversation. Does that make sense? We are conversing, minus the typical social graces you'll find at a potluck, or coffee and donuts. Maybe we could at least leave the sting of personal attack out of a disagreement. Or be more careful to treat one another with a bit more dignity, apply the benefit of the doubt as to a poster's intent. Even a heated discussion can be less personal, but on topic. Yes, we are a passionate people. I love that about traditional Catholics. And yes, we are warriors for the truth. St. Joan of Arc had many confrontations and corrections to make for the sake of truth, but nowhere does that lead one to deduce that she did so without also employing charity. Is this too girly, or too much to expect for a forum? I ask with sincerity. I want to know if I'm missing something or if this is truly this way on forums. Regardless, I love this forum and if it never changes for the better, I will continue to enjoy it, but there are times.....

Incorrect.  You committed the fallacy of pro quo pro populo and you failed to give proper references from Scholastics.  A true traditionalist properly trained in Tradition would absolutely understand high manners of communication.  From your latest post history, it is clear and evident you do not. That is the strict official position of Christulsa, CEO of OnlineArmchairPhilosophers.com. 
You are flirting with error Carleen which I suspect (translation intuitively know through cyberspace) comes from being too influenced by the Novus Or do.
But I do mean this in charity. 

Lol

But in all seriousmess, I agree manners are less important in an online forum.  Charity is key.  When I ask a fellow traditional Catholic (I actually asked a trad priest this the other day) if they're in the Catholic forums, they usually say no because of how people act uncharitably in the forums.  The priest said he used to, but stopped because he thought people were getting too arrogant and opinionated, rather than discussing.  Which is basically the thrust of the points I made.

Quote from: christulsa on August 12, 2017, 02:34:25 PM
(Edited)

I've learned a sizeable chunk of my knowledge of Catholic tradition in Catholic forums.  Met quite a few interesting, helpful ladies and gentlemen.

I'm far from perfect, but I have a few thoughts.  Maybe they will ring true for you. 

Is it just me, doesnt it seem like the forums are devolving more and more?   Not entirely.  But it seems almost like expressing one's opinion alone is considered making an argument or makes for a lively discussion.  Each taking his turn to intellectually masturbate (yes I said masturbate), stroking the ego, getting off on simply saying or suggesting "Incorrect.  No.  You are wrong." 

I mean, if you want anyone to take you seriously, spend a few calories trying to convince the other why they should hold your view as passionately as you do.  I mean if you hold something passionately to be true, dont ya wanta make some effort to convince the other person to also?

Its as if people often do not actually read eachothers posts like you would anything else.  Posts are skimmed for that one word or sentence that jumps out as strange or foreign and then bam, they're wrong, heretical, poorly catechized, stupid.

If you ARE going to make an argument, it must meet the rigorous standards of a thesis committee.  You must align all your major and minor premises with the most fluid and perfect syllogistic accuracy, or I'm not listening. 

And what is it with the anti-traditionalists making trad forums their powwow hangout?  Circling the trads with their enlightened wisdom.  I understand their gripes and distaste for Tridentine, Thomistic piety.  But its like a bunch of novus ordo Catholics crashing a post-Latin Mass trad potluck and acting like it's their party.

And the censors.  On the look out for dangerous freethinkers.  And anything that doesn't fit the groupthink.  A Tridentine Mass said in English?  Who are you, are you really one of us?  You just said something nice about Pope Francis.  Red flag!  You like Pope Michael?  Well then you must be living in your parents basement.

Censorship, imo, scares off many potentially interesting posters.

We could be having a lot more lively, creative, fruitful, and fun conversations if we'd listen to eachother and be slow to judge.  NOBODY is more Catholic, or Traditional, or Catechized, or having "The Right Ideas," by virtue of forum posts in an internet forum under a username.   

We are all people, not just usernames.  At the same time we only know about eachother by what is said in posts. 

And everybody here has the right to be an armchair theologian if they want to because it's fun to use and share what you know, as long as you dont think you are more than that, a self-appointed online Professional Theologian Authority, who MUST be listened to by virtue of that self-appointed authority.  Otherwise, back up your knowledge with facts and references, if not then use qualifiers like "From what I've read...in my understanding...what I learned."  Dont say things like "If you were actually educated and well read in Catholic Tradition (like me), and can read the Summa in Latin, French, and Italian (like me), you wouldnt make such a blatantly ignorant comment." 

Someone starts a thread about a specific subject.  Stick to the subject.  Dont derail it.  Please.  Dont like it, then don't post in it, or if its really objectionable, report to moderator.  Read what the person says.  Did they say something odd?  Ask them for clarity before going on a rashly judging witchhunt.  Answer their questions back. 

Oh and ask questions.  To me when people dispute eachother without asking eachother questions--literal, rhetorical, or otherwise--odds are it becomes each person taking his turn to pleasure themselves intellectually.

Dare eachother. Dont read minds.  Be civil but real.  Be charitable but rock the boat a bit.  Make fun of yourself.  Believe the other person. 

Ok I've said my peace.  Thanks KK for this hangout.  I love all of you, even those of you thinking right now I have a beef with them.  I have no beef with any individual.  God speed.

First, many topics on Catholic discussion forums, even on openly N.O. forums such as CA, are not topics open for debate -- not because any poster has said so, but because the Catholic Church has said so.  Your OP implies that it's the responsibility of individual posters who are well catechized to educate in thorough, scholastic fashion those who are less catechized, and to do so for free.  It is actually not other people's responsibility to "make the rigorous argument of a thesis committee" when it comes to settled doctrine.  No forum user made such an agreement with the forum owner to provide extensive, thorough "argument" on absolutely all matters that anyone else wishes to discuss. 

And the fact that you are using the imperative throughout your OP implies that you believe you are in a position to dictate how other posters reply on someone else's discussion forum besides yours.  (You're obviously capable of opening your own forum, setting your "demands" that people re-argue Catholic doctrine.)

It is further offensive that you use vulgar concepts and attribute to others why they do and do not argue points and reply to topics, as if they're a bunch of narcissists -- apparently in contrast to you.  I actually give much more credit to people than that.  I do not assume that people's motives are suspect right off the bat.  I assume that at least initially they are posting in good faith, most of the time, even if they are unaware of a doctrinal point or distinction that was argued centuries ago by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.  I also assume that if they are in error regarding the absolutes dogmatized in Catholic tradition, they might want to look up what the body of Tradition says about the topic, since this is, after all, a traditional Catholic discussion forum.

I do agree that purposefully derailing a thread -- and I don't mean what is perceived as an important interruption to clarify a definition or make an efficient correction -- is not helpful, but generally I find that the people who complain the most about that are themselves the most frequent derailers.

However, there often comes a point in a so-called debate when it is obvious that all the participants have exhausted their own points and dialogue has reached a stalemate because there is no resolution.  That lack of resolution could be refusal to stay on topic (someone prefers a different topic, a side topic, and is disgruntled because no one wants to play the new game with him).  Or it could be that all the arguable aspects of the topic have been pursued already, but someone in the discussion is still unhappy and demanding that others continue with him ad infinitum. (He's still fascinated; there's nothing wrong with that; but assuming that when others don't care to join in the stream-of-consciousness that they lack "courage," intellectual fortitude, or have no substance to argue, is both inaccurate and uncharitable.  Maybe the person doing the arguing --whoever he is -- is boring on this topic, although not on other topics.) 

From time to time I have opened threads that have interested either few or none.  I don't conclude that the rest of the forum users "lack courage."  Maybe my topic is boring to them, even though a similar topic interested them.  I don't take it personally and find it an opportunity to get on a soapbox about the supposed moral, spiritual, emotional, or intellectual failings of others.

But here's the bottom line when it comes to Catholicism.  Our individual Confirmations obligated us to become responsible for becoming informed Catholics, and that includes Tradition -- however poorly Tradition was taught to someone (if that someone was a convert or was born into the N.O.) or however it was left completely un-taught.  Other posters are not responsible for doing any other poster's homework (self-study).  I can be patient to a point, and I like providing resources to people who never had those resources, and I like explaining what I do know to those who show a genuine interest in knowledge and are not just complacent in their own ignorance.  I would say that I especially like being generous in the area of moral theology and spirituality because most modern Catholics received extremely unreliable catechesis in both, even though they might have been well taught as to sacraments and some other essentials.

Many people assume that they are excellent debaters, arguers, and cannot understand why others don't want to engage them, and actually in this matter I'm mostly referring to other discussion forums.  (I have noticed the syndrome on other forums, that is.)  They, also, become either bewildered or quite annoyed that "no one [or not enough people, or not the people they want to argue with] wants to debate" with them.  They also often accuse others of not being sufficiently intellectual, courageous, or charitable, but they do not see how either the topic (sometimes) or their assumptions/demands (other times) does not motivate others to participate.

[edited for my typo]

Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 12, 2017, 05:08:19 PM
I was able to edit the subject line in this reply, so I think you should be able to similarly edit the OP.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdL8dizd98M[/yt]

(https://alln-extcloud-storage.cisco.com/gblogs/sites/40/2015/08/Scotty_zpsaed6c853.jpg)

"Captain, I think I fixed it."

-

Quote from: Miriam_M on August 12, 2017, 10:32:01 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 12, 2017, 02:34:25 PM
(Edited)

I've learned a sizeable chunk of my knowledge of Catholic tradition in Catholic forums.  Met quite a few interesting, helpful ladies and gentlemen.

I'm far from perfect, but I have a few thoughts.  Maybe they will ring true for you. 

Is it just me, doesnt it seem like the forums are devolving more and more?   Not entirely.  But it seems almost like expressing one's opinion alone is considered making an argument or makes for a lively discussion.  Each taking his turn to intellectually masturbate (yes I said masturbate), stroking the ego, getting off on simply saying or suggesting "Incorrect.  No.  You are wrong." 

I mean, if you want anyone to take you seriously, spend a few calories trying to convince the other why they should hold your view as passionately as you do.  I mean if you hold something passionately to be true, dont ya wanta make some effort to convince the other person to also?

Its as if people often do not actually read eachothers posts like you would anything else.  Posts are skimmed for that one word or sentence that jumps out as strange or foreign and then bam, they're wrong, heretical, poorly catechized, stupid.

If you ARE going to make an argument, it must meet the rigorous standards of a thesis committee.  You must align all your major and minor premises with the most fluid and perfect syllogistic accuracy, or I'm not listening. 

And what is it with the anti-traditionalists making trad forums their powwow hangout?  Circling the trads with their enlightened wisdom.  I understand their gripes and distaste for Tridentine, Thomistic piety.  But its like a bunch of novus ordo Catholics crashing a post-Latin Mass trad potluck and acting like it's their party.

And the censors.  On the look out for dangerous freethinkers.  And anything that doesn't fit the groupthink.  A Tridentine Mass said in English?  Who are you, are you really one of us?  You just said something nice about Pope Francis.  Red flag!  You like Pope Michael?  Well then you must be living in your parents basement.

Censorship, imo, scares off many potentially interesting posters.

We could be having a lot more lively, creative, fruitful, and fun conversations if we'd listen to eachother and be slow to judge.  NOBODY is more Catholic, or Traditional, or Catechized, or having "The Right Ideas," by virtue of forum posts in an internet forum under a username.   

We are all people, not just usernames.  At the same time we only know about eachother by what is said in posts. 

And everybody here has the right to be an armchair theologian if they want to because it's fun to use and share what you know, as long as you dont think you are more than that, a self-appointed online Professional Theologian Authority, who MUST be listened to by virtue of that self-appointed authority.  Otherwise, back up your knowledge with facts and references, if not then use qualifiers like "From what I've read...in my understanding...what I learned."  Dont say things like "If you were actually educated and well read in Catholic Tradition (like me), and can read the Summa in Latin, French, and Italian (like me), you wouldnt make such a blatantly ignorant comment." 

Someone starts a thread about a specific subject.  Stick to the subject.  Dont derail it.  Please.  Dont like it, then don't post in it, or if its really objectionable, report to moderator.  Read what the person says.  Did they say something odd?  Ask them for clarity before going on a rashly judging witchhunt.  Answer their questions back. 

Oh and ask questions.  To me when people dispute eachother without asking eachother questions--literal, rhetorical, or otherwise--odds are it becomes each person taking his turn to pleasure themselves intellectually.

Dare eachother. Dont read minds.  Be civil but real.  Be charitable but rock the boat a bit.  Make fun of yourself.  Believe the other person. 

Ok I've said my peace.  Thanks KK for this hangout.  I love all of you, even those of you thinking right now I have a beef with them.  I have no beef with any individual.  God speed.

First, many topics on Catholic discussion forums, even on openly N.O. forums such as CA, are not topics open for debate -- not because any poster has said so, but because the Catholic Church has said so.  Your OP implies that it's the responsibility of individual posters who are well catechized to educate in thorough, scholastic fashion those who are less catechized, and to do so for free.  It is actually not other people's responsibility to "make the rigorous argument of a thesis committee" when it comes to settled doctrine.  No forum user made such an agreement with the forum owner to provide extensive, thorough "argument" on absolutely all matters that anyone else wishes to discuss. 

And the fact that you are using the imperative throughout your OP implies that you believe you are in a position to dictate how other posters reply on someone else's discussion forum besides yours.  (You're obviously capable of opening your own forum, setting your "demands" that people re-argue Catholic doctrine.)

It is further offensive that you use vulgar concepts and attribute to others why they do and do not argue points and reply to topics, as if they're a bunch of narcissists -- apparently in contrast to you.  I actually give much more credit to people than that.  I do not assume that people's motives are suspect right off the bat.  I assume that at least initially they are posting in good faith, most of the time, even if they are unaware of a doctrinal point or distinction that was argued centuries ago by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.  I also assume that if they are in error regarding the absolutes dogmatized in Catholic tradition, they might want to look up what the body of Tradition says about the topic, since this is, after all, a traditional Catholic discussion forum.

I do agree that purposefully derailing a thread -- and I don't mean what is perceived as an important interruption to clarify a definition or make an efficient correction -- is not helpful, but generally I find that the people who complain the most about that are themselves the most frequent derailers.

However, there often comes a point in a so-called debate when it is obvious that all the participants have exhausted their own points and dialogue has reached a stalemate because there is no resolution.  That lack of resolution could be refusal to stay on topic (someone prefers a different topic, a side topic, and is disgruntled because no one wants to play the new game with him).  Or it could be that all the arguable aspects of the topic have been pursued already, but someone in the discussion is still unhappy and demanding that others continue with him ad infinitum. (He's still fascinated; there's nothing wrong with that; but assuming that when others don't care to join in the stream-of-consciousness that they lack "courage," intellectual fortitude, or have no substance to argue, is both inaccurate and uncharitable.  Maybe the person doing the arguing --whoever he is -- is boring on this topic, although not on other topics.) 

From time to time I have opened threads that have interested either few or none.  I don't conclude that the rest of the forum users "lack courage."  Maybe my topic is boring to them, even though a similar topic interested them.  I don't take it personally and find it an opportunity to get on a soapbox about the supposed moral, spiritual, emotional, or intellectual failings of others.

But here's the bottom line when it comes to Catholicism.  Our individual Confirmations obligated us to become responsible for becoming informed Catholics, and that includes Tradition -- however poorly Tradition was taught to someone (if that someone was a convert or was born into the N.O.) or however it was left completely un-taught.  Other posters are not responsible for doing any other poster's homework (self-study).  I can be patient to a point, and I like providing resources to people who never had those resources, and I like explaining what I do know to those who show a genuine interest in knowledge and are not just complacent in their own ignorance.  I would say that I especially like being generous in the area of moral theology and spirituality because most modern Catholics received extremely unreliable catechesis in both, even though they might have been well taught as to sacraments and some other essentials.

Many people assume that they are excellent debaters, arguers, and cannot understand why others don't want to engage them, and actually in this matter I'm mostly referring to other discussion forums.  (I have noticed the syndrome on other forums, that is.)  They, also, become either bewildered or quite annoyed that "no one [or not enough people, or not the people they want to argue with] wants to debate" with them.  They also often accuse others of not being sufficiently intellectual, courageous, or charitable, but they do not see how either the topic (sometimes) or their assumptions/demands (other times) does not motivate others to participate.

[edited for my typo]

Quote from: christulsa on August 12, 2017, 02:34:25 PM

If you ARE going to make an argument, it must meet the rigorous standards of a thesis committee.  You must align all your major and minor premises with the most fluid and perfect syllogistic accuracy, or I'm not listening..........

Someone starts a thread about a specific subject.  Stick to the subject.  Dont derail it.  Please.  Dont like it, then don't post in it, or if its really objectionable, report to moderator.  Read what the person says.  Did they say something odd?  Ask them for clarity before going on a rashly judging witchhunt.

Case in point.

The first paragraph is obviously not literal.  Sigh.

Quote from: christulsa on August 12, 2017, 03:22:13 PM

Quote from: Non Nobis on August 12, 2017, 02:51:41 PM
Typo: Discissions in Catholic Forums

Just providing a case in point!  :D  Now you can get me back with "what are you talking about", after fixing it. ;)  (it doesn't bother me, it just seemed like an opportunity for humor)

I generally agree with you Chris, although I would have put it more gently.  But that's just me, and maybe your way is better -  definitely more courageous.

Have to judge other posters as kindly as we can.  Sometimes things come across as uncharitable when they are really meant to help (e.g. dealing with the scrupulous, etc).     Sometimes "that is just the way pe :shrug:ople are" (e.g. brusque by nature or by vice), and it's not a matter of their carelessly taking advantage of writing on a forum to be rude.

Shoot.  Tried editing the title.   :shrug: 

So...WHY do you "generally agree?"  I double dog dare you.  :D

For one thing, I think not answering questions is not as rude as it might be when speaking face to face! I know I sometimes don't answer questions simply because there are too many to handle; or when I just am not there to post (or of course when I just don't have an answer!). Probably people shouldn't have as high expectations for responsiveness when posting as they do in personal interactions. (But I answered your question anyway!  I couldn't resist the double dog dare.  :D).

It seems people sometimes answer by giving a little essay (since we are writing, that seems allowable), but sometimes by being more spontaneous.  Posting is a kind of a blend of writing and speaking.  It is hard to get the etiquette just right, and people have different styles.  (I guess I have a  little of both styles. I sometimes finish a post thinking,"oops that sounded like a sermon". At other times I think, "I sure put a lot of work into making that sound spontaneous" (and then it probably didn't  :) ). I'm rather slow and quiet... )

Some people just don't communicate as well as others; but we all have to keep trying. But civility and charity and humility and understanding on both sides should be the goal, which I know was the main point of your OP.

Quote from: Non Nobis on August 13, 2017, 03:08:43 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 12, 2017, 03:22:13 PM

Quote from: Non Nobis on August 12, 2017, 02:51:41 PM
Typo: Discissions in Catholic Forums

Just providing a case in point!  :D  Now you can get me back with "what are you talking about", after fixing it. ;)  (it doesn't bother me, it just seemed like an opportunity for humor)

I generally agree with you Chris, although I would have put it more gently.  But that's just me, and maybe your way is better -  definitely more courageous.

Have to judge other posters as kindly as we can.  Sometimes things come across as uncharitable when they are really meant to help (e.g. dealing with the scrupulous, etc).     Sometimes "that is just the way pe :shrug:ople are" (e.g. brusque by nature or by vice), and it's not a matter of their carelessly taking advantage of writing on a forum to be rude.

Shoot.  Tried editing the title.   :shrug: 

So...WHY do you "generally agree?"  I double dog dare you.  :D

For one thing, I think not answering questions is not as rude as it might be when speaking face to face! I know I sometimes don't answer questions simply because there are too many to handle; or when I just am not there to post (or of course when I just don't have an answer!). Probably people shouldn't have as high expectations for responsiveness when posting as they do in personal interactions. (But I answered your question anyway!  I couldn't resist the double dog dare.  :D).

It seems people sometimes answer by giving a little essay (since we are writing, that seems allowable), but sometimes by being more spontaneous.  Posting is a kind of a blend of writing and speaking.  It is hard to get the etiquette just right, and people have different styles.  (I guess I have a  little of both styles. I sometimes finish a post thinking,"oops that sounded like a sermon". At other times I think, "I sure put a lot of work into making that sound spontaneous" (and then it probably didn't  :) ). I'm rather slow and quiet... )

Some people just don't communicate as well as others; but we all have to keep trying. But civility and charity and humility and understanding on both sides should be the goal, which I know was the main point of your OP.

Yes, Non. You are so smart.

Non, you actually didnt answer my question.  LOL. Afraid of being censored? That's ok. 

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 03:20:41 PM
Non, you actually didnt answer my question.  LOL. Afraid of being censored? That's ok.

Don't care. I love to hear what she has to say.

Quote from: Carleendiane on August 13, 2017, 03:57:47 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 03:20:41 PM
Non, you actually didnt answer my question.  LOL. Afraid of being censored? That's ok.

Don't care. I love to hear what she has to say.

As do I.  What do you mean by "Don't care"

I pretty much agree with most of the opening post.  I think all members should basically follow it, including yourself christulsa.  Keep in mind that this is suppose to be a Traditional Catholic forum though.  I have been going to the same forums with Miriam M for quite a few years now.  I find her very intelligent and helpful.  You would do well and learn much if you took the time to listen to her.

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 04:16:24 PM

Quote from: Carleendiane on August 13, 2017, 03:57:47 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 03:20:41 PM
Non, you actually didnt answer my question.  LOL. Afraid of being censored? That's ok.

Don't care. I love to hear what she has to say.

As do I.  What do you mean by "Don't care"

Don't care if she actually answered your  question.  Chris, I was just being a bit flippant.

Quote from: mikemac on August 13, 2017, 04:34:35 PM
I pretty much agree with the opening post.  I think all members should basically follow it, including yourself christulsa.  I have been going to the same forums with Miriam M for quite a few years now.  I find her very intelligent and helpful.  You would do well and learn much if you took the time to listen to her.

I do.  And this thread is not about her.  Its about observations of how Catholic forums, imo, are devolving.  Not about individuals here.  Where it's becoming more and more difficult to have a civil discussion.  Case in point--your post. 

Quote from: Carleendiane on August 13, 2017, 04:53:29 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 04:16:24 PM

Quote from: Carleendiane on August 13, 2017, 03:57:47 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 03:20:41 PM
Non, you actually didnt answer my question.  LOL. Afraid of being censored? That's ok.

Don't care. I love to hear what she has to say.

As do I.  What do you mean by "Don't care"

Don't care if she actually answered your  question.  Chris, I was just being a bit flippant.

Why be flippant??  I was joking with Non.

I'm not the kind of person to wine if someone doesnt answer my question or reply to me, despite how I was mischaracterized by Miriam.  My beef in the OP is not with individuals, which I said, but with a downward trend in all the Catholic forums where it's more and more difficult to talk about religion.  To the point some trad priests caution about the forums.

I meant no offense to anyone in this thread, including Miriam.  But I'll be backing away a bit from SD and posting less.  Pax.

Quote from: christulsa on August 12, 2017, 02:34:25 PM

(Edited)

I've learned a sizeable chunk of my knowledge of Catholic tradition in Catholic forums.  Met quite a few interesting, helpful ladies and gentlemen.

I'm far from perfect, but I have a few thoughts.  Maybe they will ring true for you. 

Is it just me, doesnt it seem like the forums are devolving more and more?   Not entirely.  But it seems almost like expressing one's opinion alone is considered making an argument or makes for a lively discussion.  Each taking his turn to intellectually masturbate (yes I said masturbate), stroking the ego, getting off on simply saying or suggesting "Incorrect.  No.  You are wrong." 

I mean, if you want anyone to take you seriously, spend a few calories trying to convince the other why they should hold your view as passionately as you do.  I mean if you hold something passionately to be true, dont ya wanta make some effort to convince the other person to also?

Its as if people often do not actually read eachothers posts like you would anything else.  Posts are skimmed for that one word or sentence that jumps out as strange or foreign and then bam, they're wrong, heretical, poorly catechized, stupid.

If you ARE going to make an argument, it must meet the rigorous standards of a thesis committee.  You must align all your major and minor premises with the most fluid and perfect syllogistic accuracy, or I'm not listening. 

And what is it with the anti-traditionalists making trad forums their powwow hangout?  Circling the trads with their enlightened wisdom.  I understand their gripes and distaste for Tridentine, Thomistic piety.  But its like a bunch of novus ordo Catholics crashing a post-Latin Mass trad potluck and acting like it's their party.

And the censors.  On the look out for dangerous freethinkers.  And anything that doesn't fit the groupthink.  A Tridentine Mass said in English?  Who are you, are you really one of us?  You just said something nice about Pope Francis.  Red flag!  You like Pope Michael?  Well then you must be living in your parents basement.

Censorship, imo, scares off many potentially interesting posters.

We could be having a lot more lively, creative, fruitful, and fun conversations if we'd listen to eachother and be slow to judge.  NOBODY is more Catholic, or Traditional, or Catechized, or having "The Right Ideas," by virtue of forum posts in an internet forum under a username.   

We are all people, not just usernames.  At the same time we only know about eachother by what is said in posts. 

And everybody here has the right to be an armchair theologian if they want to because it's fun to use and share what you know, as long as you dont think you are more than that, a self-appointed online Professional Theologian Authority, who MUST be listened to by virtue of that self-appointed authority.  Otherwise, back up your knowledge with facts and references, if not then use qualifiers like "From what I've read...in my understanding...what I learned."  Dont say things like "If you were actually educated and well read in Catholic Tradition (like me), and can read the Summa in Latin, French, and Italian (like me), you wouldnt make such a blatantly ignorant comment." 

Someone starts a thread about a specific subject.  Stick to the subject.  Dont derail it.  Please.  Dont like it, then don't post in it, or if its really objectionable, report to moderator.  Read what the person says.  Did they say something odd?  Ask them for clarity before going on a rashly judging witchhunt.  Answer their questions back. 

Oh and ask questions.  To me when people dispute eachother without asking eachother questions--literal, rhetorical, or otherwise--odds are it becomes each person taking his turn to pleasure themselves intellectually.

Dare eachother. Dont read minds.  Be civil but real.  Be charitable but rock the boat a bit.  Make fun of yourself.  Believe the other person. 

Ok I've said my peace.  Thanks KK for this hangout.  I love all of you, even those of you thinking right now I have a beef with them.  I have no beef with any individual.  God speed.

I love you too christulsa.

After Church I tend to mingle with other adult men, not too much the elderly nor the too young. On forums men and women, the learned and unlearned, the strict and the lax all mingle.  The greater the diversity of people the greater likelihood of communication breaking down or becoming unpleasant. 

In the past I took greater pains to put sources when I wrote and I after reading your post I hope I can be better about it moving forward.  Also, I will try to be more attentive to asking questions when making a reply.

As to the rest, I think it to be a necessity of Christian behavior sometimes to not participate in certain threads or with certain quarrelsome personalities. 

It is an honour for a man to separate himself from quarrels Proverbs 20:3

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 07:38:53 PM
I meant no offense to anyone in this thread, including Miriam.  But I'll be backing away a bit from SD and posting less.  Pax.

I wish you wouldn't... I hate it when my favorite posters fade away.

I'm finding less value in discussion forums than I used to. I started out reading Fisheaters and then that whole weird thing happened and I left. Next I dropped in on Catho Info and found them to be horrifying and distasteful. I'm happy to have found Sucipie Dominie.

Quote from: christulsa on August 12, 2017, 02:34:25 PM

(Edited)

I've learned a sizeable chunk of my knowledge of Catholic tradition in Catholic forums.  Met quite a few interesting, helpful ladies and gentlemen.

I'm far from perfect, but I have a few thoughts.  Maybe they will ring true for you. ...

All this, in essence, is the result of people being challenged with the notion that, as wonderful as Catholic tradition is, knowledge of Catholic tradition is not the answer to everything.  Vatican II would be impossible if "traditional Catholicism" were in fact true simpliciter; and thus it is empirically refuted, since Vatican II happened.  For all too many, rather than risk their presuppositions being challenged, the insults start flying.  Clearly some measure of thinking "outside the box" is necessary to find the answers on some things, which the traditionalist mindset does not allow for, since everything new is by definition bad, as it is not part of "tradition".  Specifically, the following, which are anathema in traddom.

1.  It's OK to be wrong - there should be no fear of new ideas just because they are new.  Of course, it is wrong to adamantly insist you are correct when proven wrong, but that is a different thing.  Knowledge advances sometimes by means of trying something out for size and seeing it doesn't fit.  Edison and the Wright Brothers were wrong many times before they were right.

2.  It's OK for authority figures to be wrong.  Even two of the greatest minds in all of Christianity (St. Augustine and St. Thomas) were wrong on some things.  Saying this does not in the least detract from their insight or their value. To the contrary, it increases it, for it shows they were able to accomplish what they did while at the same time being fallible humans.

3.  When at least part of an argument has to do with the use of reason, as it does everywhere in philosophy and most of the time in theology (except for positive theology), the argument to authority does not avail.  In fact, it is the refuge for the intellectually lazy.  It's necessary to actually not just read but understand the authority to see why he argued the way he did - and if the argument is cogent, it should be convincing on its own merits.

Well said, Quare!  :)

Quote from: Carleendiane on August 14, 2017, 08:51:41 AM
Well said, Quare!

It was well said indeed.  But he is "the voice of one crying in the wilderness."  Or rather, the task he has set out for himself is like that of a Christian missionary going into Syria with the intent of converting ISIS.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 14, 2017, 08:41:50 AMAll this, in essence, is the result of people being challenged with the notion that, as wonderful as Catholic tradition is, knowledge of Catholic tradition is not the answer to everything.  Vatican II would be impossible if "traditional Catholicism" were in fact true simpliciter; and thus it is empirically refuted, since Vatican II happened.  For all too many, rather than risk their presuppositions being challenged, the insults start flying.  Clearly some measure of thinking "outside the box" is necessary to find the answers on some things, which the traditionalist mindset does not allow for, since everything new is by definition bad, as it is not part of "tradition".

So what do we keep and what do we let go? Different people seem to have their own ideas as to what is most important and argue that the other parties are not "traditional". There are many diverse opinions on this forum and in the traditional Catholic world as I am aware of it so arguments are understandable.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 14, 2017, 08:41:50 AM
there should be no fear of new ideas just because they are new. 

Perhaps you do not understand that a central problem of the Conciliar movement was "new ideas just because they [were] new."  This is called novelty, a feature of modernism, which the Church has consistently regarded as not only error but heresy.

Thus, the reaction is not properly classified as "fear."

Quote from: Miriam_M on August 14, 2017, 09:26:16 AM

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 14, 2017, 08:41:50 AM
there should be no fear of new ideas just because they are new. 

Perhaps you do not understand that a central problem of the Conciliar movement was "new ideas just because they [were] new."  This is called novelty, a feature of modernism, which the Church has consistently regarded as not only error but heresy.

Thus, the reaction is not properly classified as "fear."

This is an affirming the consequent fallacy.  Because modernism entails novelty does not imply that novelty entails modernism.  Many of the ideas of St. Thomas were novel for his day (and in fact at first condemned by Archbishop Tempier of Paris).  Likewise for St. Augustine.

It is also a red herring, since I did not say that ideas should be accepted merely because they are new, but only that they shouldn't be rejected out of hand merely because they are new.

I forgot to mention in my list:

4.  The truth or force of an argument is judged on its soundness (e.g. whether the premises are true and whether the conclusions are entailed by the premises); or, if merely a probable argument, on its cogency (e.g. whether the premises are probably true and whether the conclusion is probable given the premises).  They are not judged primarily on whether or not they are in "accord with tradition", fallacies or no.  If you double down on a clearly fallacious argument you will be rightly accused of intellectual dishonesty.

It seems sometimes, not always, that a person with a weak argument will "double down" in defense against insult or the questioning of their commitment to traditional Catholicism. If a person can explain themselves without censor, without insult, they may actually come to the conclusion on their own that they are wrong, or proposing something in opposition to their own traditional mindset. The feeling of insult or judgement skews response to a poster proposing a very good argument against your point. I have felt the sting, and my nature is to withdraw, rather than go head to head. This is not any kind of virtue, but usually inspired by the recognition of a weak argument I cannot bolster with facts.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 14, 2017, 10:34:28 AM

Quote from: Miriam_M on August 14, 2017, 09:26:16 AM

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 14, 2017, 08:41:50 AM
there should be no fear of new ideas just because they are new. 

Perhaps you do not understand that a central problem of the Conciliar movement was "new ideas just because they [were] new."  This is called novelty, a feature of modernism, which the Church has consistently regarded as not only error but heresy.

Thus, the reaction is not properly classified as "fear."

This is an affirming the consequent fallacy.  Because modernism entails novelty does not imply that novelty entails modernism.  Many of the ideas of St. Thomas were novel for his day (and in fact at first condemned by Archbishop Tempier of Paris).  Likewise for St. Augustine.

It is also a red herring, since I did not say that ideas should be accepted merely because they are new, but only that they shouldn't be rejected out of hand merely because they are new.

I believe the red herring is on you Quaremerepulisti.  Miriam did not mention anything about accepting or rejecting.  She is simply correcting your assumption that the reaction to new ideas is "fear".

The reaction to something new should be suspicion.  Especially considering priests do not take the Oath Against Modernism anymore since VII.

Quote from: Carleendiane on August 14, 2017, 11:09:18 AM
It seems sometimes, not always, that a person with a weak argument will "double down" in defense against insult or the questioning of their commitment to traditional Catholicism. If a person can explain themselves without censor, without insult, they may actually come to the conclusion on their own that they are wrong, or proposing something in opposition to their own traditional mindset. The feeling of insult or judgement skews response to a poster proposing a very good argument against your point. I have felt the sting, and my nature is to withdraw, rather than go head to head. This is not any kind of virtue, but usually inspired by the recognition of a weak argument I cannot bolster with facts.

I agree that gratuitous attacks of persons should be off-limits as they are against charity and are irrelevant ad hominems to boot.  However, arguments made publicly are fair game, and it is the person's own fault if he takes personally opposition to his arguments, especially if they really are weak or arguably against Catholicism.  Sometimes people do need to grow a thicker skin a little bit.  Besides, everyone's made bad arguments at some point.  So what?

Quote from: mikemac on August 14, 2017, 12:00:38 PM
I believe the red herring is on you Quaremerepulisti.  Miriam did not mention anything about accepting or rejecting. 

According to her a central problem with the Conciliar movement was the acceptance of novel ideas.

QuoteShe is simply correcting your assumption that the reaction to new ideas is "fear".  The reaction to something new should be suspicion.  Especially considering priests do not take the Oath Against Modernism anymore since VII.

Why should the reaction be one of suspicion, rather then letting new ideas be judged on their own merits?  The latter is rationality; the former, mere prejudice.  If the new idea happens to be wrong when fairly evaluated, then it can be rejected and discarded.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 14, 2017, 01:26:59 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 14, 2017, 12:00:38 PM
I believe the red herring is on you Quaremerepulisti.  Miriam did not mention anything about accepting or rejecting. 

According to her a central problem with the Conciliar movement was the acceptance of novel ideas.

Yeah she was referring to the heresy of modernism.

That's why the reaction to any other new ideas should be suspicion.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 14, 2017, 01:26:59 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 14, 2017, 12:00:38 PM
She is simply correcting your assumption that the reaction to new ideas is "fear".  The reaction to something new should be suspicion.  Especially considering priests do not take the Oath Against Modernism anymore since VII.

Why should the reaction be one of suspicion, rather then letting new ideas be judged on their own merits?  The latter is rationality; the former, mere prejudice.  If the new idea happens to be wrong when fairly evaluated, then it can be rejected and discarded.

Like VII and the NOM.   :rolleyes:

You sound like you are okay with the current Conciliar situation in the Church.

It's all really, in the final analysis Christulsa, vanity and pride.

All you posters, ask yourself:  when was the last time you said "sorry" to someone else on this forum?  When was the last time you said, "I am wrong" on this forum?  Even more benignly, when was the last time you simply asked a question, and honest question, that you were seeking the answer to?

Afraid to let the world know that you, an anonymous poster no less, don't know everything?

If, on the other hand, you come here to role up your sleeves and prep for a fight, pontificate, routinely think of other posters as "opponents", deem intellectual humility a handicap, then....well...I think very basic questions need to be asked, like: why exactly do you post on this forum? 

You know, when I read a great intellect like St. Thomas (GK Chesterton, I believe, put St Thomas in the top 3 smartest people who ever lived), but who was also a saint, I never get that feeling that he was showing off, attacking others, or otherwise trying to self-aggrandize.  No one is threatened by his smarts.  Like no one is threatened by the Virgin Mary's beauty.

In short, I found Christulsa's post accurate and timely.

Finally, for those of you who post here a lot: ask yourself, do you pray at least as long as the amount of time you spend on this, and perhaps other, fora? 

Honestly, the discussions on this forum and the anti traditionlist contingent has made it so I visit less often. When I visit, the duration is shorter. The barbarians have taken over. I take enough crap from the outside world for being a trad. I shouldn' t have to take it on a trad forum. It's like someone took the social hour after Mass and added in very loud people with anti traditional tendencies. People just leave because there is no use arguing with people like that. But I still check in to see if the wind has run out of the windy ones.

1.   Religion and politics are not separate but intermingle. 

2.   Some arguments can be creative where arguers are able to examine all ideas reasonably and arrive at a value.

3.   Some arguments involve people whose narrative, idea is so attached, that it cannot be separated.  Identity politics is an example.

4.  No one wants their argument bounced around but at least your point has been considered....

Quote from: GeorgeT on August 16, 2017, 06:06:05 AM
Honestly, the discussions on this forum and the anti traditionlist contingent has made it so I visit less often. When I visit, the duration is shorter. The barbarians have taken over. I take enough crap from the outside world for being a trad. I shouldn' t have to take it on a trad forum. It's like someone took the social hour after Mass and added in very loud people with anti traditional tendencies. People just leave because there is no use arguing with people like that. But I still check in to see if the wind has run out of the windy ones.

IOW, you would like trad forums (and, by extension, traditional Catholicism) to be more like the Left.  You want everything to exist within a cozy epistemological bubble, with no room whatsoever for challenging your assumptions and conclusions.  Anyone who does challenge your assumptions is by that very fact evil, unenlightened, vacuous, and stupid.  And it is impossible that they make valid points with which you must engage - it is simply useless to argue with "those" kind of people.

This is pathetic.

For example, no saint would use the phrase "circle-jerk" in a post on a forum (and this is not the first time QMR has used this term).  What a disgusting image to plant in people minds, on a traditional Catholic forum no less: and for what?  to merely sound sophisticated?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_jerk_%28sexual_practice%29

So lets hear it QMR: a sincere apology?

Quote from: St. Columba on August 17, 2017, 10:59:50 AM
For example, no saint would use the phrase "circle-jerk" in a post on a forum (and this is not the first time QMR has used this term).  What a disgusting image to plant in people minds, on a traditional Catholic forum no less: and for what?  to merely sound sophisticated?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_jerk_%28sexual_practice%29

So lets hear it QMR: a sincere apology?

You got it.  I did not know it had that meaning.  I edited the post appropriately.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 17, 2017, 08:25:22 AM

Quote from: GeorgeT on August 16, 2017, 06:06:05 AM
Honestly, the discussions on this forum and the anti traditionlist contingent has made it so I visit less often. When I visit, the duration is shorter. The barbarians have taken over. I take enough crap from the outside world for being a trad. I shouldn' t have to take it on a trad forum. It's like someone took the social hour after Mass and added in very loud people with anti traditional tendencies. People just leave because there is no use arguing with people like that. But I still check in to see if the wind has run out of the windy ones.

IOW, you would like trad forums (and, by extension, traditional Catholicism) to be more like the Left.  You want everything to exist within a cozy epistemological bubble, with no room whatsoever for challenging your assumptions and conclusions.  Anyone who does challenge your assumptions is by that very fact evil, unenlightened, vacuous, and stupid.  And it is impossible that they make valid points with which you must engage - it is simply useless to argue with "those" kind of people.

This is pathetic.

:laugh: Thanks for telling me what I think. Maybe you can tell me what I am thinking after you told me what I was thinking. You can have a whole conversation with me as your puppet.

Oh, and calling my words pathetic was a great insult. Keep 'em coming!

Quote from: GeorgeT on August 17, 2017, 07:30:26 PM

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 17, 2017, 08:25:22 AM

Quote from: GeorgeT on August 16, 2017, 06:06:05 AM
Honestly, the discussions on this forum and the anti traditionlist contingent has made it so I visit less often. When I visit, the duration is shorter. The barbarians have taken over. I take enough crap from the outside world for being a trad. I shouldn' t have to take it on a trad forum. It's like someone took the social hour after Mass and added in very loud people with anti traditional tendencies. People just leave because there is no use arguing with people like that. But I still check in to see if the wind has run out of the windy ones.

IOW, you would like trad forums (and, by extension, traditional Catholicism) to be more like the Left.  You want everything to exist within a cozy epistemological bubble, with no room whatsoever for challenging your assumptions and conclusions.  Anyone who does challenge your assumptions is by that very fact evil, unenlightened, vacuous, and stupid.  And it is impossible that they make valid points with which you must engage - it is simply useless to argue with "those" kind of people.

This is pathetic.

:laugh: Thanks for telling me what I think. Maybe you can tell me what I am thinking after you told me what I was thinking. You can have a whole conversation with me as your puppet.

Oh, and calling my words pathetic was a great insult. Keep 'em coming!

(https://i.imgflip.com/1uabz1.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/1uabz1)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)

Quote from: christulsa on August 17, 2017, 08:08:26 PM

Quote from: GeorgeT on August 17, 2017, 07:30:26 PM

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 17, 2017, 08:25:22 AM

Quote from: GeorgeT on August 16, 2017, 06:06:05 AM
Honestly, the discussions on this forum and the anti traditionlist contingent has made it so I visit less often. When I visit, the duration is shorter. The barbarians have taken over. I take enough crap from the outside world for being a trad. I shouldn' t have to take it on a trad forum. It's like someone took the social hour after Mass and added in very loud people with anti traditional tendencies. People just leave because there is no use arguing with people like that. But I still check in to see if the wind has run out of the windy ones.

IOW, you would like trad forums (and, by extension, traditional Catholicism) to be more like the Left.  You want everything to exist within a cozy epistemological bubble, with no room whatsoever for challenging your assumptions and conclusions.  Anyone who does challenge your assumptions is by that very fact evil, unenlightened, vacuous, and stupid.  And it is impossible that they make valid points with which you must engage - it is simply useless to argue with "those" kind of people.

This is pathetic.

:laugh: Thanks for telling me what I think. Maybe you can tell me what I am thinking after you told me what I was thinking. You can have a whole conversation with me as your puppet.

Oh, and calling my words pathetic was a great insult. Keep 'em coming!

(https://i.imgflip.com/1uabz1.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/1uabz1)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)

:cheeseheadbeer:
Good one.
It's not a safe space plea. It's just how people operate. You go to Mcdonalds and expect to get hamburgers. You go to a trad forum and expect to get to talk with trads. Sometimes you just want to talk with like minded people. There's nothing, at all, wrong with that.

Imagine if your local Knights of Columbus was filled with Southern Baptists calling The Catholic Chrurch the whore of Babylon. You might stay and argue with them a while, but after a certain length of time you might consider not going so much anymore.

Imagine if the local knitting club was filled with people screaming that crochet is superior. You might stay and argue with them a while, but after a certain length of time you might consider not going so much anymore.

Arguing is only fun for so long. After a while it's just a "pearls before swine" "shake the dust off of your sandals" situation.

I'm happy to wash dishes or read a catechism until this whole anti trad situation blows over.

This is an interesting and thought provoking post.

While qrm had some good points he basically proved chris' point when he started making statements like "you think...." that is a sure way to put someone on the defensive.

From what I have seen, forums have a life cycle. The older the forum the crankie.

-updated-

Quote from: GeorgeT on August 17, 2017, 07:30:26 PM

:laugh: Thanks for telling me what I think. Maybe you can tell me what I am thinking after you told me what I was thinking. You can have a whole conversation with me as your puppet.

Oh, and calling my words pathetic was a great insult. Keep 'em coming!

I didn't tell you what you think.  You told me what you think.

And if you're going to dish it out with insults directed at persons ("barbarians", "very loud people at social hour", "windy ones", "pearls before swine", etc.) then you're going to take it regarding your arguments or thoughts.

Quote from: GeorgeT on August 17, 2017, 10:49:21 PM
Good one.
It's not a safe space plea. It's just how people operate. You go to Mcdonalds and expect to get hamburgers. You go to a trad forum and expect to get to talk with trads. Sometimes you just want to talk with like minded people. There's nothing, at all, wrong with that.

Imagine if your local Knights of Columbus was filled with Southern Baptists calling The Catholic Chrurch the whore of Babylon. You might stay and argue with them a while, but after a certain length of time you might consider not going so much anymore.

Imagine if the local knitting club was filled with people screaming that crochet is superior. You might stay and argue with them a while, but after a certain length of time you might consider not going so much anymore.

Arguing is only fun for so long. After a while it's just a "pearls before swine" "shake the dust off of your sandals" situation.

I'm happy to wash dishes or read a catechism until this whole anti trad situation blows over.

But the problem is that, unlike being part of an organization explicitly Catholic or supporting knitting, where we know exactly its raison d'etre, what exactly constitutes "traditional Catholicism" is nebulous; and thus it is difficult to nail down exactly what presuppositions are in the mix - and you note they are never precisely defined, not on this forum anyway.  So in the end, what it comes down to is "not traditional" = "stuff I don't agree with".  But then of course the counter is "Well I agree with it, so it's traditional".  This is not something that can be easily fixed IMO, since "traditional Catholicism" is actually self-refuting and subjective.  I just give one example here.

There are now people saying that traditional Catholicism entails believing in a flat earth.  Oh well, that isn't "real" traditional Catholicism, you say.  Based on what?  Based on science?  You mean you're putting the conclusions of evil, rationalist, atheist scientists above faith and the Bible?  Don't you realize its all a huge conspiracy with NASA one of the major players?  Don't you realize some of the early Fathers believed in a flat earth based on Scripture?  So you say, well, the Magisterium never taught a flat earth. 

But it did teach a geocentric and absolutely geostationary universe.  So at least "real" traditional Catholics should accept geocentrism, right?  But no, you say, that isn't "real" traditional Catholicism either.  Again, your opponents say, you're going to prefer the conclusions of evil, rationalist, atheist scientists over faith, the Bible, and the Magisterium?  Don't you realize they are all the same players promoting the hoax of a flat earth as well?  And all the early Fathers who spoke on it believed in a geocentric cosmos.  No, that's not "real" traditional Catholicism either, you say, because the Magisterium reversed itself centuries later.

But rejection of Vatican II on Religious Liberty is "real" traditional Catholicism, you insist, because it is a reversal of what the prior Magisterium taught a century and a half ago.  Even though, unlike geocentrism, where there is in fact a Patristic consensus (among the Fathers who talked about it), very few (if any) of the Fathers even broached the topic; it didn't even come up at all until the Middle Ages.  But you insist that what is prior is binding for Religious Liberty, but what is subsequent is binding for geocentrism.

So, to even get off the ground, there needs to be a definition of "traditional Catholicism" which doesn't involve special pleading.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 18, 2017, 07:33:14 AM

Quote from: GeorgeT on August 17, 2017, 10:49:21 PM
Good one.
It's not a safe space plea. It's just how people operate. You go to Mcdonalds and expect to get hamburgers. You go to a trad forum and expect to get to talk with trads. Sometimes you just want to talk with like minded people. There's nothing, at all, wrong with that.

Imagine if your local Knights of Columbus was filled with Southern Baptists calling The Catholic Chrurch the whore of Babylon. You might stay and argue with them a while, but after a certain length of time you might consider not going so much anymore.

Imagine if the local knitting club was filled with people screaming that crochet is superior. You might stay and argue with them a while, but after a certain length of time you might consider not going so much anymore.

Arguing is only fun for so long. After a while it's just a "pearls before swine" "shake the dust off of your sandals" situation.

I'm happy to wash dishes or read a catechism until this whole anti trad situation blows over.

But the problem is that, unlike being part of an organization explicitly Catholic or supporting knitting, where we know exactly its raison d'etre, what exactly constitutes "traditional Catholicism" is nebulous; and thus it is difficult to nail down exactly what presuppositions are in the mix - and you note they are never precisely defined, not on this forum anyway.  So in the end, what it comes down to is "not traditional" = "stuff I don't agree with".  But then of course the counter is "Well I agree with it, so it's traditional".  This is not something that can be easily fixed IMO, since "traditional Catholicism" is actually self-refuting and subjective.  I just give one example here.

There are now people saying that traditional Catholicism entails believing in a flat earth.  Oh well, that isn't "real" traditional Catholicism, you say.  Based on what?  Based on science?  You mean you're putting the conclusions of evil, rationalist, atheist scientists above faith and the Bible?  Don't you realize its all a huge conspiracy with NASA one of the major players?  Don't you realize some of the early Fathers believed in a flat earth based on Scripture?  So you say, well, the Magisterium never taught a flat earth. 

But it did teach a geocentric and absolutely geostationary universe.  So at least "real" traditional Catholics should accept geocentrism, right?  But no, you say, that isn't "real" traditional Catholicism either.  Again, your opponents say, you're going to prefer the conclusions of evil, rationalist, atheist scientists over faith, the Bible, and the Magisterium?  Don't you realize they are all the same players promoting the hoax of a flat earth as well?  And all the early Fathers who spoke on it believed in a geocentric cosmos.  No, that's not "real" traditional Catholicism either, you say, because the Magisterium reversed itself centuries later.

But rejection of Vatican II on Religious Liberty is "real" traditional Catholicism, you insist, because it is a reversal of what the prior Magisterium taught a century and a half ago.  Even though, unlike geocentrism, where there is in fact a Patristic consensus (among the Fathers who talked about it), very few (if any) of the Fathers even broached the topic; it didn't even come up at all until the Middle Ages.  But you insist that what is prior is binding for Religious Liberty, but what is subsequent is binding for geocentrism.

So, to even get off the ground, there needs to be a definition of "traditional Catholicism" which doesn't involve special pleading.

Sects,  which is a group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group based on refinements of beliefs or practice, are a work of the flesh. 

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like." Galatians 5  19:21

St. Bernard of Clairvaux in his work on the 12 steps to humility (which are actually the 12 steps to pride) number 6 as self assertion which is believing  (and seeking to become) more  pious than others.  Distinct units can be very good, for example Benedectines live out the Gospel in a way distinct from Dominicans.  However, we can fall into temptation if we start making distinctions to show that we are better than others and not like the rest of men.

I believe it is a temptation to call oneself a Traditional Catholic if a person is saying that out to make a distinction of righteousness between oneself and the other members of the universal brotherhood that exists within the Church (baptism and the maintenance of ones membership free from the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication.)   

It seems inevitable that enmities, quarrels, contentions arise out of who is and is not a traditional Catholic when one of the common aims of that term is to distinguish oneself from all those Catholics who have been judged as not traditional, and because they are not traditional they are either ignorant, deceived, impious or wicked. 

Some on the other hand make the distinction to (without wasting others times to give others a general idea of the expression of faith they follow) point out an affinity for the common forms of worship pre vatican II, or the adherenace of an older expression of the same faith.  People who make such a distinction without malice might feel some injury if they were informed that they were not really "traditional Catholics" and of course those who would say such a thing are in a way saying: "you are not my brother or my friend and I do not wish to be associated with you and your beliefs".

I understand why people do it, it is a terrible thing to feel the shame when we are disappointed in our Catholic leaders, the conduct of other Catholics and the such like and having felt the pain and shame of these things in the past people go through tremendous lengths to avoid the guilt by association. However, it is part of loving and bearing with one another that we do patiently bare one another, because we too have shamed the brotherhood by our sins. 

That is a very long winded way saying I don't think the fight over the definition of traditional Catholic is going away anytime soon.

Traditional Catholic, in my use, is quite broad in meaning. A common characteristic we share is a love for the old Mass. We attend that if available or move to where it is available, if at all feasable. We love the magisterium and follow the old calender. We follow the letter of the law, not ignoring the spirit of the law. We practice the old devotions and consider confession an important part of spiritual growth. We believe in the communion of saints, the church militant, and that souls, most souls are bound for purgatory upon death, unless they are saints. We are not modernists, and eschew modernist thought. We acknowledge fallen nature and recognize the evil in the world, calling it what it is...evil. We strive for modesty, humility, and holiness. All us of us, in varying degrees of success, live to please our Lord and Savior, and embrace His most holy Mother as our own, and as Queen of heaven and earth. We believe we will be judged by a perfectly just, perfectly merciful Judge, then appropriately rewarded or chastised, whatever the case may be.

And...we are not sourpusses. Not.

I always understood the general meaning of the term "traditional Catholicism," in the sense used by Catholics who attend the Latin Mass, as the way the Catholic Faith was practiced and professed up to the time of Vatican II.   

So I do not think the term is in itself nebulous or subjective when used by self-described "traditional Catholics," ie Catholics today who practice "traditional Catholicism."

The problem is when someone goes beyond the specific development of Catholicism up until the 1960s, and picks an outdated custom or theological opinion and insists that is true "traditional Catholicism."  When you get into things like geocentrism or baptism of desire or if the pope is really the pope, the meaning of "traditional Catholicism" starts becoming subjective if not sectarian.

So to Quare and those here with a similar point of view, I think we have to recognize the general, common meaning of "traditional Catholicism" as it is used here.  At the same time, us trads can emphasize our common traditionalism. 

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 18, 2017, 07:33:14 AM

Quote from: GeorgeT on August 17, 2017, 10:49:21 PM
Good one.
It's not a safe space plea. It's just how people operate. You go to Mcdonalds and expect to get hamburgers. You go to a trad forum and expect to get to talk with trads. Sometimes you just want to talk with like minded people. There's nothing, at all, wrong with that.

Imagine if your local Knights of Columbus was filled with Southern Baptists calling The Catholic Chrurch the whore of Babylon. You might stay and argue with them a while, but after a certain length of time you might consider not going so much anymore.

Imagine if the local knitting club was filled with people screaming that crochet is superior. You might stay and argue with them a while, but after a certain length of time you might consider not going so much anymore.

Arguing is only fun for so long. After a while it's just a "pearls before swine" "shake the dust off of your sandals" situation.

I'm happy to wash dishes or read a catechism until this whole anti trad situation blows over.

But the problem is that, unlike being part of an organization explicitly Catholic or supporting knitting, where we know exactly its raison d'etre, what exactly constitutes "traditional Catholicism" is nebulous; and thus it is difficult to nail down exactly what presuppositions are in the mix - and you note they are never precisely defined, not on this forum anyway.  So in the end, what it comes down to is "not traditional" = "stuff I don't agree with".  But then of course the counter is "Well I agree with it, so it's traditional".  This is not something that can be easily fixed IMO, since "traditional Catholicism" is actually self-refuting and subjective.  I just give one example here.

There are now people saying that traditional Catholicism entails believing in a flat earth.  Oh well, that isn't "real" traditional Catholicism, you say.  Based on what?  Based on science?  You mean you're putting the conclusions of evil, rationalist, atheist scientists above faith and the Bible?  Don't you realize its all a huge conspiracy with NASA one of the major players?  Don't you realize some of the early Fathers believed in a flat earth based on Scripture?  So you say, well, the Magisterium never taught a flat earth. 

But it did teach a geocentric and absolutely geostationary universe.  So at least "real" traditional Catholics should accept geocentrism, right?  But no, you say, that isn't "real" traditional Catholicism either.  Again, your opponents say, you're going to prefer the conclusions of evil, rationalist, atheist scientists over faith, the Bible, and the Magisterium?  Don't you realize they are all the same players promoting the hoax of a flat earth as well?  And all the early Fathers who spoke on it believed in a geocentric cosmos.  No, that's not "real" traditional Catholicism either, you say, because the Magisterium reversed itself centuries later.

But rejection of Vatican II on Religious Liberty is "real" traditional Catholicism, you insist, because it is a reversal of what the prior Magisterium taught a century and a half ago.  Even though, unlike geocentrism, where there is in fact a Patristic consensus (among the Fathers who talked about it), very few (if any) of the Fathers even broached the topic; it didn't even come up at all until the Middle Ages.  But you insist that what is prior is binding for Religious Liberty, but what is subsequent is binding for geocentrism.

So, to even get off the ground, there needs to be a definition of "traditional Catholicism" which doesn't involve special pleading.

Is there a definition of the term in the forum rules? I can't remember.

Anyway, I come to a trad forum to talk with like minded people. I have no interest in arguing over the internet. Internet arguments don't usually go anywhere.

Forums have their own flavors. Sometimes it changes. Some may like the taste. That's OK. I'm just waiting for the old taste to return.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 18, 2017, 06:52:30 AM

Quote from: GeorgeT on August 17, 2017, 07:30:26 PM

:laugh: Thanks for telling me what I think. Maybe you can tell me what I am thinking after you told me what I was thinking. You can have a whole conversation with me as your puppet.

Oh, and calling my words pathetic was a great insult. Keep 'em coming!

I didn't tell you what you think.  You told me what you think.

And if you're going to dish it out with insults directed at persons ("barbarians", "very loud people at social hour", "windy ones", "pearls before swine", etc.) then you're going to take it regarding your arguments or thoughts.

OK, so no name calling for both of us, right?  ;)

1 - There is nothing nebulous or subjective about Catholic Tradition.  Nor is it obscure.  It is locatable; however, the Novus Ordo has done one masterful job in submerging it and even secreting it -- often treating the entire body of Tradition as if it should be on the Index, and those asking about Tradition shamed for doing so and yelled at by priests for doing so.

2 - Traditional Catholicism is about way more than the Latin Mass, although obviously the Mass is central to traditional practice.  All of the traditional sacramental rites, in sum, are only the beginning of the practice of Tradition and the understanding of it.

Re Traditional Catholics:

I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people who want to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy.

Quote from: tradical on August 19, 2017, 06:48:59 AM
Re Traditional Catholics:

I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people who want to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy.

A Novus Ordo Catholic could easily say the same thing.

Quote from: tradical on August 19, 2017, 06:48:59 AM
Re Traditional Catholics:

I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people who want to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy.

Catechesis with ambiguous or non-existent reference to dogma contained in the deposit of faith?
Modernistic doctrine invented on-the-spot by parish priests who are unable to explain in the context of dogma why the parish publicly supports sodomy and fornication? [Not every parish, but lots of them -- and if not that heterodoxy, other heterodoxy]
Principles of JP2's phenomenology?
The liturgy of the Novus Ordo?

That's the understanding of the phrase "simply wanting to be Catholic" of most people attending Mass in that typical, contemporary diocesan parish.  Whether they know it or not, they don't "simply want to be a Traditional Catholic."   Catholicism has been redefined for them, and as I have explained many times, so removed from its Traditional roots as to be unrecognizable as the same religion.

And thank you, Awkward, for beating me to it.

Thank you, Miriam for so eloquently and succinctly explaining (again) what is the sad but true situation for today's "Catholics".  You have gone over the explanation of the Church's problems many times over, as well as having posited the cause for Tradition.  Yet some act as though this is all new to them or that your replies are not put in such a way that is charitable enough.  Even after asking several times, no one has been able to prove that.  Someone gets their feathers ruffled and takes it out on you because you are stouthearted enough to explain the truth in a confident manner.  I appreciate your posts, Miriam, and hope you continue to do so.  Keep speaking the truth.  It doesn't change, irregardless of what anyone would like it to.

Quote from: dymphna17 on August 19, 2017, 10:31:06 AM
Thank you, Miriam for so eloquently and succinctly explaining (again) what is the sad but true situation for today's "Catholics".  You have gone over the explanation of the Church's problems many times over, as well as having posited the cause for Tradition.  Yet some act as though this is all new to them or that your replies are not put in such a way that is charitable enough.  Even after asking several times, no one has been able to prove that.  Someone gets their feathers ruffled and takes it out on you because you are stouthearted enough to explain the truth in a confident manner.  I appreciate your posts, Miriam, and hope you continue to do so.  Keep speaking the truth.  It doesn't change, irregardless of what anyone would like it to.

Today's "Catholics" ?? b]I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic.  [/b]

In a traditional Catholic forum, trads shouldn't be judging eachother if they really understand the problems in the Church or cause of Tradition, which unfortunately happens all the time.  THAT is not charitable.

Quote from: GeorgeT on August 17, 2017, 10:49:21 PM
It's not a safe space plea. It's just how people operate. You go to Mcdonalds and expect to get hamburgers. You go to a trad forum and expect to get to talk with trads. Sometimes you just want to talk with like minded people. There's nothing, at all, wrong with that.

Imagine if your local Knights of Columbus was filled with Southern Baptists calling The Catholic Chrurch the whore of Babylon. You might stay and argue with them a while, but after a certain length of time you might consider not going so much anymore.

Imagine if the local knitting club was filled with people screaming that crochet is superior. You might stay and argue with them a while, but after a certain length of time you might consider not going so much anymore.

Arguing is only fun for so long. After a while it's just a "pearls before swine" "shake the dust off of your sandals" situation.

I'm happy to wash dishes or read a catechism until this whole anti trad situation blows over.

I think a lot of members feel the same way.  In fact I know some that have already left this forum for this reason.

QuoteSomeone gets their feathers ruffled and takes it out on you because you are stouthearted enough to explain the truth in a confident manner.

May I ask who gets upset about this?  (curious, for I don't remember negative reactions to the factual information she posts).  Now, a dispute not related to dogma, or misunderstanding, is another thing altogether vs. challenging immutable Truth.

I too appreciate your knowledge of the faith, Miriam.

Question for all - where does this leave good Novus Ordo Catholics?  I see quotes often used around the term Catholic... are they not?
For that was me and my family until we 'discovered' the TLM when transferred to another geographical area a number of years ago.  The area I was raised was N.O. only.  There wasn't a whisper of the TLM or traditionalism, so throughout childhood and early adulthood I was oblivious to the TLM, it's factions and subculture.  My parents were EWTN conservatives if you will, so me, brothers, sisters had the same conservative Catholic families when we married. 
Only my sister and I practice the traditional faith now, which is hardly different than the way we were raised, except for the TLM itself and more attention to fasting/ember days/a few other rubrics.

We now live in a small town with a diocesan church 2 doors away (although we attend a local TLM).  The - to characterize - "conservative" younger diocesan priest is literally our neighbor, and we have gotten to know him and others at the parish well.  They, too, love a reverent Mass (I know...), Gospel oriented sermon with emphasis on sin and need for Confession, First Friday devotions, Feast of Christ the King procession, etc. We only know one couple who had an annulment situation, but I'll stipulate there could be more.
We often stroll to the church when they have pot luck, a fundraiser for St. Vincent de Paul Society, and other occasions.  At heart, most are good Catholics, although I know this is anecdotal.  But I will argue that N.O. Catholics who attend Mass and Confession regularly, while in the minority (not so at this parish) are living as holy a life as they know how to.  I've been there.  Most are truly oblivious to the TLM culture, as we once were.  At this parish, they are barely aware of the FSSP parish in their diocese, let alone an SSPX chapel nearby and frequent visitations by Resistance clergy.

Catholic Radio is also an example of this kind of NO Catholic. 

My thoughts are not presented to argue for the NO culture per se, but my personal journey and continuing encounters with good people who are not of the traditional culture.

Again I'll ask, are they not Catholic?  This troubles me greatly. That's a lot of lost souls of people who truly believe they are. 

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: dymphna17 on August 19, 2017, 10:31:06 AM
Thank you, Miriam for so eloquently and succinctly explaining (again) what is the sad but true situation for today's "Catholics".  You have gone over the explanation of the Church's problems many times over, as well as having posited the cause for Tradition.  Yet some act as though this is all new to them or that your replies are not put in such a way that is charitable enough.  Even after asking several times, no one has been able to prove that.  Someone gets their feathers ruffled and takes it out on you because you are stouthearted enough to explain the truth in a confident manner.  I appreciate your posts, Miriam, and hope you continue to do so.  Keep speaking the truth.  It doesn't change, irregardless of what anyone would like it to.

Today's "Catholics" ??   I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

In a traditional Catholic forum, trads shouldn't be judging eachother if they really understand the problems in the Church or cause of Tradition, which unfortunately happens all the time.  THAT is not charitable.

I won't try to speak for dymphna, but perhaps what she meant is not they are not genuine Catholics --they are members of the Church --Catholics-- by their baptism.  Perhaps instead she meant that what is presented to them as Catholicism is something less than that or different from the permanent deposit of faith.

QuoteI give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy

If the doctrine they are taught is a different doctrine than the settled doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, then they are upholding (indeed) different (not Catholic) doctrine, as innocently as that may happen because of poor, incomplete, or directly heterodox doctrine being fed to them without their knowledge or control.  I have many current friends myself in N.O. Land.  I remain spiritual friends with them as well, in that we recognize that we belong to the same Church with a capital C.  We support each other, pray for each other, occasionally run into each other.  I visit adoration chapels in N.O. parishes, selectively go to Confession to priests who have proved themselves trustworthy and orthodox on an individual level.  I avoid their Masses because I have TLM options -- many, in fact, and some are interested in the TLM but don't know where to find it.

The Novus Ordo Mass, while valid, is not a Mass that many trads would describe as proper in the sense of ideal.  That evaluation has nothing to do with the sincerity or holiness of an individual attending and participating in that Mass, or even the celebrant himself.  Nor is it related to the Catholic mark of these same individuals.

I just want to make my own position clear on this.

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: dymphna17 on August 19, 2017, 10:31:06 AM
Thank you, Miriam for so eloquently and succinctly explaining (again) what is the sad but true situation for today's "Catholics".  You have gone over the explanation of the Church's problems many times over, as well as having posited the cause for Tradition.  Yet some act as though this is all new to them or that your replies are not put in such a way that is charitable enough.  Even after asking several times, no one has been able to prove that.  Someone gets their feathers ruffled and takes it out on you because you are stouthearted enough to explain the truth in a confident manner.  I appreciate your posts, Miriam, and hope you continue to do so.  Keep speaking the truth.  It doesn't change, irregardless of what anyone would like it to.

Today's "Catholics" ??   I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

In a traditional Catholic forum, trads shouldn't be judging eachother if they really understand the problems in the Church or cause of Tradition, which unfortunately happens all the time.  THAT is not charitable.

I'll answer your question like this Chris:

Yesterday's Catholics - Were all taught by the same basic catechism, such as the Baltimore Catechism, knew enough Latin to get through Mass at least, could go to Mass in Zimbabwe, Switzerland, or Australia and be at the same Mass, didn't have to investigate everything that came out of Rome to make sure it was, indeed, Catholic

Today's Catholics - Are taught a hodge podge of things except the Traditional part of the Church.

It was my mistake to put quotes around the words Catholics. I didn't mean anything by it.

Now, this on the other hand:  "In a traditional Catholic forum, trads shouldn't be judging eachother if they really understand the problems in the Church or cause of Tradition, which unfortunately happens all the time.  THAT is not charitable."  I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.  Trads have to be discerning of any and all information that comes in to a Trad forum (anywhere, really).  If such information is incorrect, it needs to be corrected.  You say that that is judging eachother.  IMO, discerning and correcting information does not equate to judging eachother, which would be uncharitable.  I've seen this difference get mixed up and Miriam accused of being uncharitable a few times.  That's all.

Quote from: dymphna17 on August 19, 2017, 02:23:20 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: dymphna17 on August 19, 2017, 10:31:06 AM
Thank you, Miriam for so eloquently and succinctly explaining (again) what is the sad but true situation for today's "Catholics".  You have gone over the explanation of the Church's problems many times over, as well as having posited the cause for Tradition.  Yet some act as though this is all new to them or that your replies are not put in such a way that is charitable enough.  Even after asking several times, no one has been able to prove that.  Someone gets their feathers ruffled and takes it out on you because you are stouthearted enough to explain the truth in a confident manner.  I appreciate your posts, Miriam, and hope you continue to do so.  Keep speaking the truth.  It doesn't change, irregardless of what anyone would like it to.

Today's "Catholics" ??   I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

In a traditional Catholic forum, trads shouldn't be judging eachother if they really understand the problems in the Church or cause of Tradition, which unfortunately happens all the time.  THAT is not charitable.

I'll answer your question like this Chris:

Yesterday's Catholics - Were all taught by the same basic catechism, such as the Baltimore Catechism, knew enough Latin to get through Mass at least, could go to Mass in Zimbabwe, Switzerland, or Australia and be at the same Mass, didn't have to investigate everything that came out of Rome to make sure it was, indeed, Catholic

Today's Catholics - Are taught a hodge podge of things except the Traditional part of the Church.

It was my mistake to put quotes around the words Catholics. I didn't mean anything by it.

Now, this on the other hand:  "In a traditional Catholic forum, trads shouldn't be judging eachother if they really understand the problems in the Church or cause of Tradition, which unfortunately happens all the time.  THAT is not charitable."  I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.  Trads have to be discerning of any and all information that comes in to a Trad forum (anywhere, really).  If such information is incorrect, it needs to be corrected.  You say that that is judging eachother. IMO, discerning and correcting information does not equate to judging eachother, which would be uncharitable.  I've seen this difference get mixed up and Miriam accused of being uncharitable a few times.  That's all.

You said:  "You [Miriam] have gone over the explanation of the Church's problems many times over, as well as having posited the cause for Tradition.  Yet some act as though this is all new to them"

So who is acting like it's "all new to them" that is the "Church's problems" or "the cause of Tradition"?  And what basis do you have for making that judgment?

See bolded statements.   And what exactly did I say that "correcting misinformation" is "judging eachother"?  That's putting words in my mouth and confusing judging others with merely correcting others.
The former is often done as if it is merely the latter. 

When trads come here and establish themselves as members of the forum--including the dozens of regular posters--we should be building eachother up as fellow Catholics devoted to Tradition, and not finding one little thing after another to judge whether or not the other person is Traditional enough, or Catholic enough, or has the "Right Ideas."

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

Are you sure that was the point that Tradical was trying to make?  Or is that just what you think he was trying to say?  He was referring to "Traditional Catholics".  I guess only Tradical can answer this.

Quote from: tradical on August 19, 2017, 06:48:59 AM
Re Traditional Catholics:

I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people who want to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy.

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: dymphna17 on August 19, 2017, 10:31:06 AM
Thank you, Miriam for so eloquently and succinctly explaining (again) what is the sad but true situation for today's "Catholics".  You have gone over the explanation of the Church's problems many times over, as well as having posited the cause for Tradition.  Yet some act as though this is all new to them or that your replies are not put in such a way that is charitable enough.  Even after asking several times, no one has been able to prove that.  Someone gets their feathers ruffled and takes it out on you because you are stouthearted enough to explain the truth in a confident manner.  I appreciate your posts, Miriam, and hope you continue to do so.  Keep speaking the truth.  It doesn't change, irregardless of what anyone would like it to.

Today's "Catholics" ??   I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

In a traditional Catholic forum, trads shouldn't be judging eachother if they really understand the problems in the Church or cause of Tradition, which unfortunately happens all the time.  THAT is not charitable.

How can a Novus Ordo Catholic uphold doctrine and proper liturgy?

Vatican II isn't Catholic. I've studied the Council documents closely and they scream NOT CATHOLIC to me at least. As for the Novus Ordo Mass, it's an insult to Christ, again IMO. In fact it is my sincere belief that Vatican II and its abominable NO Mass represents the revolt that St Paul warns about in 2Thess 2.

So we disagree. We can have a polite exchange of opinions if you like, but there is a chasm between our views. No discussion between us would last very long because I would have to walk away in the interestsof politeness which isn't necessarily charity.

To be honest, I don't really care whether you or anyone else attends the Novus Ordo. How you can believe that the New Mass is pleasing to God is beyond me. But you do and so here we are.

As to the question of how to define a Trad Catholic, this has nothing whatsoever to do with geocentrism or a flat Earth. I have one criteria alone. Anyone who accepts Vatican II as being Catholic and worthy of Christ isn't even Catholic, let alone a Trad. They can't be Catholic.
Because Vatican II isn't.

So in my world there are only Catholics and Novus Ordo Catholics who are as Catholic as the Conciluar 'popes' are Popes.

But since many people's positions aren't necessarily fixed and can change, I do agree that politeness is important, although I don't always manage it.

Quote from: mikemac on August 19, 2017, 04:47:47 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

Are you sure that was the point that Tradical was trying to make?  Or is that just what you think he was trying to say?  He was referring to "Traditional Catholics".  I guess only Tradical can answer this.

Quote from: tradical on August 19, 2017, 06:48:59 AM
Re Traditional Catholics:

I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people who want to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy.

No, but that's besides my point Mikemac, which I believe you understand.   

Faithful Catholics other than traditionalists aren't quote-unquote "Catholics" which Dymphna said.  But at least she corrected that.

And remember, most trads once went to the Novus Ordo, so we aren't necessarily better Catholics than those who do, and trads here aren't better than one another by virtue of posts in a forum. 

These forum wars in SD have been going on for a long time, fueled by certain posters.  Somebody needed to raise the subject.  God forbid Christulsa was the one who did.  And I'll stand by my own posting record these past two years. 

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 19, 2017, 05:27:40 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: dymphna17 on August 19, 2017, 10:31:06 AM
Thank you, Miriam for so eloquently and succinctly explaining (again) what is the sad but true situation for today's "Catholics".  You have gone over the explanation of the Church's problems many times over, as well as having posited the cause for Tradition.  Yet some act as though this is all new to them or that your replies are not put in such a way that is charitable enough.  Even after asking several times, no one has been able to prove that.  Someone gets their feathers ruffled and takes it out on you because you are stouthearted enough to explain the truth in a confident manner.  I appreciate your posts, Miriam, and hope you continue to do so.  Keep speaking the truth.  It doesn't change, irregardless of what anyone would like it to.

Today's "Catholics" ??   I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

In a traditional Catholic forum, trads shouldn't be judging eachother if they really understand the problems in the Church or cause of Tradition, which unfortunately happens all the time.  THAT is not charitable.

How can a Novus Ordo Catholic uphold doctrine and proper liturgy?

Vatican II isn't Catholic. I've studied the Council documents closely and they scream NOT CATHOLIC to me at least. As for the Novus Ordo Mass, it's an insult to Christ, again IMO. In fact it is my sincere belief that Vatican II and its abominable NO Mass represents the revolt that St Paul warns about in 2Thess 2.

So we disagree. We can have a polite exchange of opinions if you like, but there is a chasm between our views. No discussion between us would last very long because I would have to walk away in the interestsof politeness which isn't necessarily charity.

To be honest, I don't really care whether you or anyone else attends the Novus Ordo. How you can believe that the New Mass is pleasing to God is beyond me. But you do and so here we are.

As to the question of how to define a Trad Catholic, this has nothing whatsoever to do with geocentrism or a flat Earth. I have one criteria alone. Anyone who accepts Vatican II as being Catholic and worthy of Christ isn't even Catholic, let alone a Trad. They can't be Catholic.
Because Vatican II isn't.

So in my world there are only Catholics and Novus Ordo Catholics who are as Catholic as the Conciluar 'popes' are Popes.

But since many people's positions aren't necessarily fixed and can change, I do agree that politeness is important, although I don't always manage it.

Do you even read posts?  Either you're not reading what people say and taking them for what they say, or you're making stuff up.  I was talking about Novus Ordo Catholics who TRY to uphold doctrine and liturgy.  And where did I say I go to or approve of the NO?? 

Read the last thing you wrote--bolded.  You've just excluded a large number of SD members as not trad and not even Catholic!  And you are a regular here.  Lol

We should be reading each others posts and the threads before we make rash judgments against eachother.  Most or all members here are sincere, traditional Catholics. 

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 05:49:37 PM

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 19, 2017, 05:27:40 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: dymphna17 on August 19, 2017, 10:31:06 AM
Thank you, Miriam for so eloquently and succinctly explaining (again) what is the sad but true situation for today's "Catholics".  You have gone over the explanation of the Church's problems many times over, as well as having posited the cause for Tradition.  Yet some act as though this is all new to them or that your replies are not put in such a way that is charitable enough.  Even after asking several times, no one has been able to prove that.  Someone gets their feathers ruffled and takes it out on you because you are stouthearted enough to explain the truth in a confident manner.  I appreciate your posts, Miriam, and hope you continue to do so.  Keep speaking the truth.  It doesn't change, irregardless of what anyone would like it to.

Today's "Catholics" ??   I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

In a traditional Catholic forum, trads shouldn't be judging eachother if they really understand the problems in the Church or cause of Tradition, which unfortunately happens all the time.  THAT is not charitable.

How can a Novus Ordo Catholic uphold doctrine and proper liturgy?

Vatican II isn't Catholic. I've studied the Council documents closely and they scream NOT CATHOLIC to me at least. As for the Novus Ordo Mass, it's an insult to Christ, again IMO. In fact it is my sincere belief that Vatican II and its abominable NO Mass represents the revolt that St Paul warns about in 2Thess 2.

So we disagree. We can have a polite exchange of opinions if you like, but there is a chasm between our views. No discussion between us would last very long because I would have to walk away in the interestsof politeness which isn't necessarily charity.

To be honest, I don't really care whether you or anyone else attends the Novus Ordo. How you can believe that the New Mass is pleasing to God is beyond me. But you do and so here we are.

As to the question of how to define a Trad Catholic, this has nothing whatsoever to do with geocentrism or a flat Earth. I have one criteria alone. Anyone who accepts Vatican II as being Catholic and worthy of Christ isn't even Catholic, let alone a Trad. They can't be Catholic.
Because Vatican II isn't.

So in my world there are only Catholics and Novus Ordo Catholics who are as Catholic as the Conciluar 'popes' are Popes.

But since many people's positions aren't necessarily fixed and can change, I do agree that politeness is important, although I don't always manage it.

Do you even read posts?  Either you're not reading what people say and taking them for what they say, or you're making stuff up.  I was talking about Novus Ordo Catholics who TRY to uphold doctrine and liturgy.  And where did I say I go to or approve of the NO?? 

Read the last thing you wrote--bolded.  You've just excluded a large number of SD members as not trad and not even Catholic!  And you are a regular here.  Lol

We should be reading each others posts and the threads before we make rash judgments against eachother.  Most or all members here are sincere, traditional Catholics.

Ha.... what a rude reponse! Your calls for charity on forums are meaningless hot air.

Try practising what you preach.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 19, 2017, 06:22:36 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 05:49:37 PM

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 19, 2017, 05:27:40 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: dymphna17 on August 19, 2017, 10:31:06 AM
Thank you, Miriam for so eloquently and succinctly explaining (again) what is the sad but true situation for today's "Catholics".  You have gone over the explanation of the Church's problems many times over, as well as having posited the cause for Tradition.  Yet some act as though this is all new to them or that your replies are not put in such a way that is charitable enough.  Even after asking several times, no one has been able to prove that.  Someone gets their feathers ruffled and takes it out on you because you are stouthearted enough to explain the truth in a confident manner.  I appreciate your posts, Miriam, and hope you continue to do so.  Keep speaking the truth.  It doesn't change, irregardless of what anyone would like it to.

Today's "Catholics" ??   I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

In a traditional Catholic forum, trads shouldn't be judging eachother if they really understand the problems in the Church or cause of Tradition, which unfortunately happens all the time.  THAT is not charitable.

How can a Novus Ordo Catholic uphold doctrine and proper liturgy?

Vatican II isn't Catholic. I've studied the Council documents closely and they scream NOT CATHOLIC to me at least. As for the Novus Ordo Mass, it's an insult to Christ, again IMO. In fact it is my sincere belief that Vatican II and its abominable NO Mass represents the revolt that St Paul warns about in 2Thess 2.

So we disagree. We can have a polite exchange of opinions if you like, but there is a chasm between our views. No discussion between us would last very long because I would have to walk away in the interestsof politeness which isn't necessarily charity.

To be honest, I don't really care whether you or anyone else attends the Novus Ordo. How you can believe that the New Mass is pleasing to God is beyond me. But you do and so here we are.

As to the question of how to define a Trad Catholic, this has nothing whatsoever to do with geocentrism or a flat Earth. I have one criteria alone. Anyone who accepts Vatican II as being Catholic and worthy of Christ isn't even Catholic, let alone a Trad. They can't be Catholic.
Because Vatican II isn't.

So in my world there are only Catholics and Novus Ordo Catholics who are as Catholic as the Conciluar 'popes' are Popes.

But since many people's positions aren't necessarily fixed and can change, I do agree that politeness is important, although I don't always manage it.

Do you even read posts?  Either you're not reading what people say and taking them for what they say, or you're making stuff up.  I was talking about Novus Ordo Catholics who TRY to uphold doctrine and liturgy.  And where did I say I go to or approve of the NO?? 

Read the last thing you wrote--bolded.  You've just excluded a large number of SD members as not trad and not even Catholic!  And you are a regular here.  Lol

We should be reading each others posts and the threads before we make rash judgments against eachother.  Most or all members here are sincere, traditional Catholics.

Ha.... what a rude reponse! Your calls for charity on forums are meaningless hot air.

Try practising what you preach.

How was it rude awkward customer?  Are you able to explain?  For calling you out on twisting my words and condemning many Catholics here as not being traditionalists or not even Catholic who "accept VII." 

How about FSSP priests?  Institute priests?  Diocesan priests who say the TLM?  People here who attend their Masses?   Calling you out on that is rude?  Lol

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 06:40:25 PM

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 19, 2017, 06:22:36 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 05:49:37 PM

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 19, 2017, 05:27:40 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: dymphna17 on August 19, 2017, 10:31:06 AM
Thank you, Miriam for so eloquently and succinctly explaining (again) what is the sad but true situation for today's "Catholics".  You have gone over the explanation of the Church's problems many times over, as well as having posited the cause for Tradition.  Yet some act as though this is all new to them or that your replies are not put in such a way that is charitable enough.  Even after asking several times, no one has been able to prove that.  Someone gets their feathers ruffled and takes it out on you because you are stouthearted enough to explain the truth in a confident manner.  I appreciate your posts, Miriam, and hope you continue to do so.  Keep speaking the truth.  It doesn't change, irregardless of what anyone would like it to.

Today's "Catholics" ??   I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

In a traditional Catholic forum, trads shouldn't be judging eachother if they really understand the problems in the Church or cause of Tradition, which unfortunately happens all the time.  THAT is not charitable.

How can a Novus Ordo Catholic uphold doctrine and proper liturgy?

Vatican II isn't Catholic. I've studied the Council documents closely and they scream NOT CATHOLIC to me at least. As for the Novus Ordo Mass, it's an insult to Christ, again IMO. In fact it is my sincere belief that Vatican II and its abominable NO Mass represents the revolt that St Paul warns about in 2Thess 2.

So we disagree. We can have a polite exchange of opinions if you like, but there is a chasm between our views. No discussion between us would last very long because I would have to walk away in the interestsof politeness which isn't necessarily charity.

To be honest, I don't really care whether you or anyone else attends the Novus Ordo. How you can believe that the New Mass is pleasing to God is beyond me. But you do and so here we are.

As to the question of how to define a Trad Catholic, this has nothing whatsoever to do with geocentrism or a flat Earth. I have one criteria alone. Anyone who accepts Vatican II as being Catholic and worthy of Christ isn't even Catholic, let alone a Trad. They can't be Catholic.
Because Vatican II isn't.

So in my world there are only Catholics and Novus Ordo Catholics who are as Catholic as the Conciluar 'popes' are Popes.

But since many people's positions aren't necessarily fixed and can change, I do agree that politeness is important, although I don't always manage it.

Do you even read posts?  Either you're not reading what people say and taking them for what they say, or you're making stuff up.  I was talking about Novus Ordo Catholics who TRY to uphold doctrine and liturgy.  And where did I say I go to or approve of the NO?? 

Read the last thing you wrote--bolded.  You've just excluded a large number of SD members as not trad and not even Catholic!  And you are a regular here.  Lol

We should be reading each others posts and the threads before we make rash judgments against eachother.  Most or all members here are sincere, traditional Catholics.

Ha.... what a rude reponse! Your calls for charity on forums are meaningless hot air.

Try practising what you preach.

How was it rude awkward customer?  Are you able to explain?  For calling you out on twisting my words and condemning many Catholics here as not being traditionalists or not even Catholic who "accept VII." 

How about FSSP priests?  Institute priests?  Diocesan priests who say the TLM?  People here who attend their Masses?   Calling you out on that is rude?  Lol

You accused me of not reading posts and suggested that I'm making things up. That's rude in my book.

As for twisting your words - that's ridiculous.  You're over-reacting and taking things personally. You've done this repeatedly with other posters. I know this because I read your posts.

And I'm not condemning anyone. People here have given their opinions on what constitutes a Traditional Catholic. And I have given mine. If you don't like it that's too bad.

You have been calling for more charity on forums.  I express an opinion and this is how you react.

Calling me out, you say. You can give it any name you like. But I believe, after a great deal of study, that Vatican II is not Catholic and that the Novus Ordo Mass is an insult to Christ.

Now let's see some of your charity in action.  If you have a counter opinion to offer then let's hear it.  But try to move on from merely condemning me for having an opinion you don't like.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 19, 2017, 07:07:29 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 06:40:25 PM

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 19, 2017, 06:22:36 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 05:49:37 PM

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 19, 2017, 05:27:40 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: dymphna17 on August 19, 2017, 10:31:06 AM
Thank you, Miriam for so eloquently and succinctly explaining (again) what is the sad but true situation for today's "Catholics".  You have gone over the explanation of the Church's problems many times over, as well as having posited the cause for Tradition.  Yet some act as though this is all new to them or that your replies are not put in such a way that is charitable enough.  Even after asking several times, no one has been able to prove that.  Someone gets their feathers ruffled and takes it out on you because you are stouthearted enough to explain the truth in a confident manner.  I appreciate your posts, Miriam, and hope you continue to do so.  Keep speaking the truth.  It doesn't change, irregardless of what anyone would like it to.

Today's "Catholics" ??   I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

In a traditional Catholic forum, trads shouldn't be judging eachother if they really understand the problems in the Church or cause of Tradition, which unfortunately happens all the time.  THAT is not charitable.

How can a Novus Ordo Catholic uphold doctrine and proper liturgy?

Vatican II isn't Catholic. I've studied the Council documents closely and they scream NOT CATHOLIC to me at least. As for the Novus Ordo Mass, it's an insult to Christ, again IMO. In fact it is my sincere belief that Vatican II and its abominable NO Mass represents the revolt that St Paul warns about in 2Thess 2.

So we disagree. We can have a polite exchange of opinions if you like, but there is a chasm between our views. No discussion between us would last very long because I would have to walk away in the interestsof politeness which isn't necessarily charity.

To be honest, I don't really care whether you or anyone else attends the Novus Ordo. How you can believe that the New Mass is pleasing to God is beyond me. But you do and so here we are.

As to the question of how to define a Trad Catholic, this has nothing whatsoever to do with geocentrism or a flat Earth. I have one criteria alone. Anyone who accepts Vatican II as being Catholic and worthy of Christ isn't even Catholic, let alone a Trad. They can't be Catholic.
Because Vatican II isn't.

So in my world there are only Catholics and Novus Ordo Catholics who are as Catholic as the Conciluar 'popes' are Popes.

But since many people's positions aren't necessarily fixed and can change, I do agree that politeness is important, although I don't always manage it.

Do you even read posts?  Either you're not reading what people say and taking them for what they say, or you're making stuff up.  I was talking about Novus Ordo Catholics who TRY to uphold doctrine and liturgy.  And where did I say I go to or approve of the NO?? 

Read the last thing you wrote--bolded.  You've just excluded a large number of SD members as not trad and not even Catholic!  And you are a regular here.  Lol

We should be reading each others posts and the threads before we make rash judgments against eachother.  Most or all members here are sincere, traditional Catholics.

Ha.... what a rude reponse! Your calls for charity on forums are meaningless hot air.

Try practising what you preach.

How was it rude awkward customer?  Are you able to explain?  For calling you out on twisting my words and condemning many Catholics here as not being traditionalists or not even Catholic who "accept VII." 

How about FSSP priests?  Institute priests?  Diocesan priests who say the TLM?  People here who attend their Masses?   Calling you out on that is rude?  Lol

You accused me of not reading posts and suggested that I'm making things up. That's rude in my book.

As for twisting your words - that's ridiculous.  You're over-reacting and taking things personally. You've done this repeatedly with other posters. I know this because I read your posts.

And I'm not condemning anyone. People here have given their opinions on what constitutes a Traditional Catholic. And I have given mine. If you don't like it that's too bad.

You have been calling for more charity on forums.  I express an opinion and this is how you react.

Calling me out, you say. You can give it any name you like. But I believe, after a great deal of study, that Vatican II is not Catholic and that the Novus Ordo Mass is an insult to Christ.

Now let's see some of your charity in action.  If you have a counter opinion to offer then let's hear it.  But try to move on from merely condemning me for having an opinion you don't like.

I've reacted to the same 4, like-minded people who have personalized the Original Post.  I wonder why the OP hit a nerve with you four.  Could it be because you took the criticisms personally?

I said you weren't reading my posts because you kept going on about me attending the new Mass.  Which I haven't in 17 years so obviously you're not reading posts or making things up.

You did not just say VII was not Catholic, read what you wrote.  You said:

  Anyone who accepts Vatican II as being Catholic and worthy of Christ isn't even Catholic, let alone a Trad. They can't be Catholic.   

Considering many trad priests and faithful here on Suscipe Domine who attend their Masses, do accept the Council, how can you say they're not even Catholic?

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 05:39:52 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 19, 2017, 04:47:47 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

Are you sure that was the point that Tradical was trying to make?  Or is that just what you think he was trying to say?  He was referring to "Traditional Catholics".  I guess only Tradical can answer this.

Quote from: tradical on August 19, 2017, 06:48:59 AM
Re Traditional Catholics:

I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people who want to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy.

No, but that's besides my point Mikemac, which I believe you understand.   

Faithful Catholics other than traditionalists aren't quote-unquote "Catholics" which Dymphna said.  But at least she corrected that.

And remember, most trads once went to the Novus Ordo, so we aren't necessarily better Catholics than those who do, and trads here aren't better than one another by virtue of posts in a forum. 

These forum wars in SD have been going on for a long time, fueled by certain posters.  Somebody needed to raise the subject.  God forbid Christulsa was the one who did.  And I'll stand by my own posting record these past two years.

You are making it look like Tradical made the point that you did.  Which does not look like he did.  That is all that I was pointing out.  Why does everything have to be an argument with you?

Quote from: mikemac on August 19, 2017, 08:13:09 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 05:39:52 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 19, 2017, 04:47:47 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

Are you sure that was the point that Tradical was trying to make?  Or is that just what you think he was trying to say?  He was referring to "Traditional Catholics".  I guess only Tradical can answer this.

Quote from: tradical on August 19, 2017, 06:48:59 AM
Re Traditional Catholics:

I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people who want to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy.

No, but that's besides my point Mikemac, which I believe you understand.   

Faithful Catholics other than traditionalists aren't quote-unquote "Catholics" which Dymphna said.  But at least she corrected that.

And remember, most trads once went to the Novus Ordo, so we aren't necessarily better Catholics than those who do, and trads here aren't better than one another by virtue of posts in a forum. 

These forum wars in SD have been going on for a long time, fueled by certain posters.  Somebody needed to raise the subject.  God forbid Christulsa was the one who did.  And I'll stand by my own posting record these past two years.

You are making it look like Tradical made the point that you did.  Which does not look like he did.  That is all that I was pointing out.  Why does everything have to be an argument with you?

Well somethings ARE an argument Mikemac, like for instance the subject of the Original post, or your objections to this thread.  Engaging that is hardly making "everything an argument." 

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 09:30:58 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 19, 2017, 08:13:09 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 05:39:52 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 19, 2017, 04:47:47 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

Are you sure that was the point that Tradical was trying to make?  Or is that just what you think he was trying to say?  He was referring to "Traditional Catholics".  I guess only Tradical can answer this.

Quote from: tradical on August 19, 2017, 06:48:59 AM
Re Traditional Catholics:

I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people who want to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy.

No, but that's besides my point Mikemac, which I believe you understand.   

Faithful Catholics other than traditionalists aren't quote-unquote "Catholics" which Dymphna said.  But at least she corrected that.

And remember, most trads once went to the Novus Ordo, so we aren't necessarily better Catholics than those who do, and trads here aren't better than one another by virtue of posts in a forum. 

These forum wars in SD have been going on for a long time, fueled by certain posters.  Somebody needed to raise the subject.  God forbid Christulsa was the one who did.  And I'll stand by my own posting record these past two years.

You are making it look like Tradical made the point that you did.  Which does not look like he did.  That is all that I was pointing out.  Why does everything have to be an argument with you?

Well somethings ARE an argument Mikemac, like for instance the subject of the Original post, or your objections to this thread.  Engaging that is hardly making "everything an argument."

I have no objections to this thread.  If you read back through the posts you'll find that I said I pretty much agree with most of the opening post.  And that I think all members should basically follow it, including yourself christulsa.

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 05:49:37 PM
I was talking about Novus Ordo Catholics who TRY to uphold doctrine and liturgy.  And where did I say I go to or approve of the NO??

In my perspective, this is the source of the confusion.  Awkward's point (and mine earlier) is that there is no longer one (unified) liturgy taught as Catholic by name.  (I would put that Catholic in quotes, only because grammatically it should be properly quoted, since the context is what is named by the N.O. mainstream Church as Catholic.  But since I don't want to be a target of a flame war, I have merely italicized the word.)

So when a poster asserts that all or many N.O. Catholics are "trying to uphold doctrine and liturgy."  Which liturgy?  If they're in the N.O., by definition that will not be the traditional liturgy.  It will be a new --and rather non-uniform, by the way-- liturgy, reflecting the supposed glory of man and his self-centeredness instead of the subjugation of man in the worship of the true God.  It's sad to me that they're "upholding" novelty and modernism, yet even sadder that their shepherds are too cowardly to feed them the rich and honest food of Tradition.

Doctrine?  How is it laudable to "uphold" false doctrine?  Again, it is not necessarily the fault of the faithful so erroneously and dishonestly taught, but to say that they have any consciousness of the true doctrines which are their birthright to learn is to be at least somewhat out of touch with the reality of what is preached and published in most diocesan parishes.  It is a so-called doctrine radically different from Tradition.

[edited for my typo]

Quote from: mikemac on August 19, 2017, 10:38:57 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 09:30:58 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 19, 2017, 08:13:09 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 05:39:52 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 19, 2017, 04:47:47 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

Are you sure that was the point that Tradical was trying to make?  Or is that just what you think he was trying to say?  He was referring to "Traditional Catholics".  I guess only Tradical can answer this.

Quote from: tradical on August 19, 2017, 06:48:59 AM
Re Traditional Catholics:

I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people who want to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy.

No, but that's besides my point Mikemac, which I believe you understand.   

Faithful Catholics other than traditionalists aren't quote-unquote "Catholics" which Dymphna said.  But at least she corrected that.

And remember, most trads once went to the Novus Ordo, so we aren't necessarily better Catholics than those who do, and trads here aren't better than one another by virtue of posts in a forum. 

These forum wars in SD have been going on for a long time, fueled by certain posters.  Somebody needed to raise the subject.  God forbid Christulsa was the one who did.  And I'll stand by my own posting record these past two years.

You are making it look like Tradical made the point that you did.  Which does not look like he did.  That is all that I was pointing out.  Why does everything have to be an argument with you?

Well somethings ARE an argument Mikemac, like for instance the subject of the Original post, or your objections to this thread.  Engaging that is hardly making "everything an argument."

I have no objections to this thread.  If you read back through the posts you'll find that I said I pretty much agree with most of the opening post.  And that I think all members should basically follow it, including yourself christulsa.

quote author=mikemac link=topic=18342.msg408151#msg408151 date=1503203937]

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 09:30:58 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 19, 2017, 08:13:09 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 05:39:52 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 19, 2017, 04:47:47 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic. 

Are you sure that was the point that Tradical was trying to make?  Or is that just what you think he was trying to say?  He was referring to "Traditional Catholics".  I guess only Tradical can answer this.

Quote from: tradical on August 19, 2017, 06:48:59 AM
Re Traditional Catholics:

I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people whnt to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy.

No, but that's besides my point Mikemac, which I believe you understand.   

Faithful Catholics other than traditionalists aren't quote-unquote "Catholics" which Dymphna said.  But at least she corrected that.

And remember, most trads once went to the Novus Ordo, so we aren't necessarily better Catholics than those who do, and trads here aren't better than one another by virtue of posts in a forum. 

These forum wars in SD have been going on for a long time, fueled by certain posters.  Somebody needed to raise the subject.  God forbid Christulsa was the one who did.  And I'll stand by my own posting record these past two years.

You are making it look like Tradical made the point that you did.  Which does not look like he did.  That is all that I was pointing out.  Why does everything have to be an argument with you?

Well somethings ARE an argument Mikemac, like for instance the subject of the Original post, or your objections to this thread.  Engaging that is hardly making "everything an argument."

I have no objections to this thread.  If you read back through the posts you'll find that I said I pretty much agree with most of the opening post.  And that I think all members should basically follow it, including yourself christulsa.

Actually, you did object to this thread in the Church of the future thread Mikemac.  Did you forget?  You accused me of making this thread "a dig" against a certain member and several times of a "clandestine pm smear campaign" against them.  I had to explain, then was accused of inventing PMs and making a threat in a PM, and only after that was I forced to post the four Private Messages I sent which show otherwise.  Its right there towards the end of the thread.

And yet I still offered you an apology.  Do you have anything to apologize for?  Since you and I are fellow traditional Catholics and members of SD forum? 

-

Quote from: Miriam_M on August 19, 2017, 11:14:10 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 05:49:37 PM
I was talking about Novus Ordo Catholics who TRY to uphold doctrine and liturgy.  And where did I say I go to or approve of the NO??

In my perspective, this is the source of the confusion.  Awkward's point (and mine earlier) is that there is no longer one (unified) liturgy taught as Catholic by name.  (I would put that Catholic in quotes, only because grammatically it should be properly quoted, since the context is what is named by the N.O. mainstream Church as Catholic.  But since I don't want to be a target of a flame war, I have merely italicized the word.)

So when a poster asserts that all or many N.O. Catholics are "trying to uphold doctrine and liturgy."  Which liturgy?  If they're in the N.O., by definition that will not be the traditional liturgy.  It will be a new --and rather non-uniform, by the way-- liturgy, reflecting the supposed glory of man and his self-centeredness instead of the subjugation of man in the worship of the true God.  It's sad to me that they're "upholding" novelty and modernism, yet even sadder that their shepherds are too cowardly to feed them the rich and honest food of Tradition.

Doctrine?  How is it laudable to "uphold" false doctrine?  Again, it is not necessarily the fault of the faithful so erroneously and dishonestly taught, but to say that they have any consciousness of the true doctrines which are their birthright to learn is to be at least somewhat out of touch with the reality of what is preached and published in most diocesan parishes.  It is a so-called doctrine radically different from Tradition.

[edited for my typo]

"I give every person who attends the Novus Ordo, who tries to uphold doctrine and proper liturgy--Tradical's point--the benefit of the doubt that they ARE Catholic."


See bolded what I said.  Perhaps this was confused for something else.  I didn't say I give "all or many NO Catholics the benefit of the doubt that they uphold doctrine and liturgy."

What I said in that bolded statement was that for those Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo, who do try and uphold doctrine and liturgy, I give them the benefit of the doubt they ARE Catholic.

Two different ideas.  But I don't see how either idea implies attending or approving of the Novus Ordo liturgy, which was claimed.  And reviewing the posts, I don't see anyone as directly talking about the NO liturgy in any post before that claim was made. 

So I would be willing to chalk this part of the discussion up to "confusion"  Fair enough?

I have apologized to you Miriam.  Do you have anything to apologize for?  Since we are fellow traditional Catholics and members of SD forum?

the problem with traditional catholic forums is that they're all populated by human beings with human errors

sure we're all a bunch of avatars.  carleen is a bus, christulsa is a backyard, dymph is an angel.  but underneath all the avatars and usernames are real people with our own glaring character flaws.  it would be nice to think that we're all striving for holiness but most of us could stand to strive a little harder (i know i can).  I probably shouldnt even post here at all--my faith is hanging by a thread and attempts at being a  "real trad" have lead to nothing but mental confusion, despair and being thisclose to leaving the faith.  we have a lot more in common with each other than we have with anyone else in the world, even if some of us are really annoying.

usually when i'm around secular people i am the crazy religious heterosexist nutjob who is a horrible person just for believing that the government should not have to pay for your birth control.  but i've never fit in well with trads because i don't lead the same type of blue-collar-gun-toting-rural-15-passenger-van lifestyle, i believe the earth goes around the sun, i dont subscribe to many conspiracy theories, and I'm a Jew.  The jews i know can barely agree on where to order lunch much less how to go about destroying western civilization.  It's been over 5000 years and they still can't tell you what happens after you die. 

i think back to the days when i was going to TLM on sundays, NO during the week..it's hard to remember but i think i had authentic christian joy back then instead of being away from communion for years at a time and not having any joy or peace whatsoever.  there are many NO catholics who are joyfully pray their rosary and receive their sacraments not knowing that something better is out there.  most NO catholics i know grew up with the novus ordo and it's all they know... perhaps God is going to be more merciful to them for not knowing better than He is to those traditionalists who know better and yet fail at living a catholic life. 

Quote from: Chestertonian on August 20, 2017, 12:03:32 AM
perhaps God is going to be more merciful to them for not knowing better than He is to those traditionalists who know better and yet fail at living a catholic life.

I don't even question that, nor have I ever -- privately or publicly.
Different standards according to the opportunities and knowledge, yes.

However, I didn't think that the original points of contention had been about the question of holiness or "comparing" that.  (And how could one?)  Rather, the points being argued (among several) were whether novelty is exciting and grand and should be imported into various settings for supposed conversion purposes -- when the entire Catholic world has already seen the disastrous results of a half century of experimentation with novelty and excitement, experiments which were also based on the alleged cultural positives and utopian idealism  fantasies of the Second Vatican Council.

I think there are lots of holy people despite what's been done to them and despite how they've been neglected by the Church, but the argument others were making was in part the "multicultural" argument that historically have not necessarily brought Catholic behavior and genuine (traditional) Catholic belief to the masses, but brought a kind of multicultural "version" of Catholicism which has tolerated and still does tolerate cultural compromises to the 10 Commandments and the Laws of the Church.  Latin America is a case in point.  There's a great deal of piety there, but piety is not interchangeable with moral behavior.  There is a mixture in Latin America of a very compromised practice of the faith and a priority of culture over the demands of the faith -- with a history of devotion, prayer, and strong identity with the Church.  There are examples in Africa as well.

People should be careful what they wish for.

Quote from: Miriam_M on August 20, 2017, 12:26:32 AM

Quote from: Chestertonian on August 20, 2017, 12:03:32 AM
perhaps God is going to be more merciful to them for not knowing better than He is to those traditionalists who know better and yet fail at living a catholic life.

I don't even question that, nor have I ever -- privately or publicly.
Different standards according to the opportunities and knowledge, yes.

However, I didn't think that the original points of contention had been about the question of holiness or "comparing" that.  (And how could one?)  Rather, the points being argued (among several) were whether novelty is exciting and grand and should be imported into various settings for supposed conversion purposes -- when the entire Catholic world has already seen the disastrous results of a half century of experimentation with novelty and excitement, experiments which were also based on the alleged cultural positives and utopian idealism  fantasies of the Second Vatican Council.

I think there are lots of holy people despite what's been done to them and despite how they've been neglected by the Church, but the argument others were making was in part the "multicultural" argument that historically have not necessarily brought Catholic behavior and genuine (traditional) Catholic belief to the masses, but brought a kind of multicultural "version" of Catholicism which has tolerated and still does tolerate cultural compromises to the 10 Commandments and the Laws of the Church.  Latin America is a case in point.  There's a great deal of piety there, but piety is not interchangeable with moral behavior.  There is a mixture in Latin America of a very compromised practice of the faith and a priority of culture over the demands of the faith -- with a history of devotion, prayer, and strong identity with the Church.  There are examples in Africa as well.

People should be careful what they wish for.

See bolded.

I think Ches' points were about Trad Discussion Forums which is the subject of this thread, and not implying you question his points.  But I dont see anywhere in this thread anyone talking about multiculturalism in the Church ??

Quare made the original point about how discussions in the forums can subjectively misuse the term "traditional Catholicism" so we talked about that for a while.  But after that the discussion got derailed talking about the Crisis in the Church, which is something we traditional Catholics already share a common understanding about.  We trads all have a problem with Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, false forms of inculturation, the "regime of novelty," despite our differences in how we interpret the errors.  We trads love the traditional Mass, Tradition, and the Church, though often we may fail in that devotion.

Otherwise, unless a subject is considered by the Church to be a "closed subject," wouldnt you agree we should tolerate different varieties of opinions in a discussion forum?

Quote from: christulsa on August 20, 2017, 01:01:04 AM
I think Ches' points were about Trad Discussion Forums which is the subject of this thread, and not implying you question his points.  But I dont see anywhere in this thread anyone talking about multiculturalism in the Church ??

Correct.  But his last paragraph reminded me of the frequently introduced false dichotomy that is sometimes explicit argument and sometimes implicit:  that after all, it's all about holiness (yes it is), and some relatively ignorant person might be more holy than many trads (of course), but these are straw men and red herrings that often result in others exploiting that off-topic point to bash traditionalism.  (Forum Rule #5 under Conduct)

The multiculturalism issue (from another thread) is related only in that is an example that not all topics for discussion conform to Traditional Catholic assumptions and that getting exercised and angry that others either don't agree with various OP's or are not interested in the topic shows a failure to understand the basic premises of Traditional Catholicism and how radically different those are from the modernistic suppositions being implied or stated on those threads.

QuoteQuare made the original point about how discussions in the forums can subjectively misuse the term "traditional Catholicism"

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't begin to understand what that is, and further that he doesn't identify as one.  And if you and/or he thinks Catholic Tradition is "subjective," then neither of you understands what it is.

QuoteOtherwise, unless a subject is considered by the Church to be a "closed subject," wouldnt you agree we should tolerate different varieties of opinions in a discussion forum?

Not if the opinions reek of modernism.  Modernism is a heresy.

Let me fix this for you:

Quotewouldnt you agree we should tolerate different varieties of opinions in a traditional Catholic discussion forum?

The opinions you have wanted to "tolerate" or at least explore have been largely radically opposed to Catholic Tradition, such as the inventive theology of the Second Vatican Council.  Why should trads want to "debate" heterodox ideas, and why would you be surprised if they didn't want to?

You seem to want to argue for argument's sake, which many people find to be a waste of time.

Quote from: Miriam_M on August 20, 2017, 01:56:49 AM

Quote from: christulsa on August 20, 2017, 01:01:04 AM
I think Ches' points were about Trad Discussion Forums which is the subject of this thread, and not implying you question his points.  But I dont see anywhere in this thread anyone talking about multiculturalism in the Church ??

Correct.  But his last paragraph reminded me of the frequently introduced false dichotomy that is sometimes explicit argument and sometimes implicit:  that after all, it's all about holiness (yes it is), and some relatively ignorant person might be more holy than many trads (of course), but these are straw men and red herrings that often result in others exploiting that off-topic point to bash traditionalism.  (Forum Rule #5 under Conduct)

The multiculturalism issue (from another thread) is related only in that is an example that not all topics for discussion conform to Traditional Catholic assumptions and that getting exercised and angry that others either don't agree with various OP's or are not interested in the topic shows a failure to understand the basic premises of Traditional Catholicism and how radically different those are from the modernistic suppositions being implied or stated on those threads.

QuoteQuare made the original point about how discussions in the forums can subjectively misuse the term "traditional Catholicism"

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't begin to understand what that is, and further that he doesn't identify as one.  And if you and/or he thinks Catholic Tradition is "subjective," then neither of you understands what it is.

QuoteOtherwise, unless a subject is considered by the Church to be a "closed subject," wouldnt you agree we should tolerate different varieties of opinions in a discussion forum?

Not if the opinions reek of modernism.  Modernism is a heresy.

Let me fix this for you:

Quotewouldnt you agree we should tolerate different varieties of opinions in a traditional Catholic discussion forum?

The opinions you have wanted to "tolerate" or at least explore have been largely radically opposed to Catholic Tradition, such as the inventive theology of the Second Vatican Council.  Why should trads want to "debate" heterodox ideas, and why would you be surprised if they didn't want to?

You seem to want to argue for argument's sake, which many people find to be a waste of time.

See bolded.  Wow.

Any chance you're able to show me the specific posts where I was quote "angry that others did not agree with my Original Posts?"

Or the posts where I was "angry because others are not interested in the topic?"

Or the posts where I said or even implied "Catholic Tradition is 'subjective'?"

Or in what posts did I "explore the 'inventive theology of Vatican II'?"

I mean if you're going to keep making untruthful accusations like that, in fairness you'd refer to specific posts and threads.  But there are none, because I never said those things.

This is my last response to her.  Onward and upward.

Quote from: tradical on August 19, 2017, 06:48:59 AM
Re Traditional Catholics:

I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people who want to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy.

I had no idea this simple sentence would create so much discussion.

What does it mean to be "Catholic in all that matters"?

Dogma: Accept all the Dogma's of the Catholic Church - as She has understands them.
Doctrine: Accept all the Doctrines of the Catholic Church - as She has understands them.
Principles: Accept all the Catholic Principles - as She has understands them.
Liturgy: Desire and Seek a Liturgy that embodies ALL of the above.

A person who does the above (assuming they are Baptised Catholic) are simply Catholic.  The use of the 'Traditional' is simply to provide the ability to identify a specfic sub-group.

Who are the people who fit this description?

A few quick points:

I try to not argue facts

Second Vatican Council:
A. Called by a Catholic Pope, attended by Catholic Bishops, Closed by a Catholic Pope.  Fact: It is a Council of the Church
B. 3 days into the Council the preparatory documents were thrown out etc. Fact: There was a conflict between opposing 'sides' in the council and in many ways the Council was highjacked.

Quote from: tradical on August 20, 2017, 06:36:23 AM

Quote from: tradical on August 19, 2017, 06:48:59 AM
Re Traditional Catholics:

I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people who want to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy.

I had no idea this simple sentence would create so much discussion.

What does it mean to be "Catholic in all that matters"?

Dogma: Accept all the Dogma's of the Catholic Church - as She has understands them.
Doctrine: Accept all the Doctrines of the Catholic Church - as She has understands them.
Principles: Accept all the Catholic Principles - as She has understands them.
Liturgy: Desire and Seek a Liturgy that embodies ALL of the above.

A person who does the above (assuming they are Baptised Catholic) are simply Catholic.  The use of the 'Traditional' is simply to provide the ability to identify a specfic sub-group.

Who are the people who fit this description?

A few quick points:

I try to not argue facts

Second Vatican Council:
A. Called by a Catholic Pope, attended by Catholic Bishops, Closed by a Catholic Pope.  Fact: It is a Council of the Church
B. 3 days into the Council the preparatory documents were thrown out etc. Fact: There was a conflict between opposing 'sides' in the council and in many ways the Council was highjacked.

I agree with your definition of what it means to be 'Catholic in all that matters'.  But the question remains. Is this possible in the Conciliar Church?

I say it isn't for the simple reaon that Vatican II isn't Catholic.  Which brings me to your 'facts'. 

Your 'facts' are facts as you see them.  The 'facts' as I see them are quite different. Since Vatican II isn't Catholic, it can't have come from the Catholic Church, and those who promote Vatican II aren't Catholic either.

The Council wasn't highjacked. The Church was. The Modernists were calling for a Council as early as the 1920s. The preparatory documents were a ruse. Get the Council called by appearing traditional then change the goalpoasts as soon as the Council has convened. This put the Bishops on the back foot and so they signed the documents. Only later did some discern their true nature. Those who went along with it and to this day still promote the Council aren't Catholic.

Again, there' s a gulf between our positions. Your 'facts' are quite different from my 'facts'.

We can't both be right. Time will tell.

The question is: "What is a traditionalist"; if we look at the history of the Church after the Council of sad memory, we see the three currents of opinion emerge in the Church: 1. Modernists/progressives 2. Conservatives 3. Traditionalists. The three positions were labelled in accordance with their attitude towards Vatican II; "Modernists/progressives: Vatican II was wonderful, and either it is the last word in Catholic teaching or the starting point for the future reforming of all Catholic teaching and practice. Conservatives: Vatican II was good in itself, but the teachings of the Council have either been falsely explained and distorted by modernist/progressive theologians and bishops or its reforms have been clumsily or imprudently implemented, causing a great deal of confusion and suffering among the clergy and laity alike. Traditionalists: Vatican II was a disaster almost from the beginning; its documents contain either heresies of ambiguities that can be interpreted in a heretical manner and therefore must be rejected. The reforms implemented in the name of the Council in the Church have been equally or even more disastrous than the Council itself; the whole thing needs to be scrapped and we have go back to the place where the council set the Church off the rails.
The bifurcation between Progressives and Conservatives occurred during the debates of Vatican II; but the Conservatives who had objected to the errors on the documents during the council, ceased their objections once the documents had been approved (see The Rhine Flows Into the Tyber, Rev. Ralph Wiltgen). The bifurcation between the trads and the Conservatives arose after the Council over the rejection of the former to the documents of the Council itself and especially after the introduction of the vernacular canon of the Mass with the mistranslation of the "Pro-multis" into "For all Men" in the words of the Consecration of the wine and even more, with the introduction of the N.O.M. That is when the Conservatives that had voiced their objections, upon seeing that the Pope had approved the changes, went along with these; while the traditionalists, simply left their parishes and began to form their own Mass centers, schools, seminaries etc. The whole movement was based on the rejection of Vatican II and its reforms.
That is basically what happened in forty million words or less.   

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 11:15:48 PM
And yet I still offered you an apology.  Do you have anything to apologize for?  Since you and I are fellow traditional Catholics and members of SD forum?

The fact that you started flame wars all over this forum right after your flimsy excuse for an apology nullified your flimsy excuse for an apology.  No I certainly do not have anything to apologize for.  Especially to you.

In reply to your slandering Miriam PM you sent me on August 13th I tried to give you a bit of advise.  That advise for you still holds true.  Actually the whole PM reply is good advise for you but I am specifically referring to the part in red at this time.

Quote from: mikemac on August 13, 2017, 05:53:10 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 05:38:55 PM
Were you serious about Miriam?  Everybody knows Mikemac she's about as arrogant as they come, and she's often twisting what people say, including what she herself said.  Look at how she twisted Pons question about the meaning of the word sodomy. Either she has trouble reading or deliberately makes shit up.  Not somebody you want to be aligning yourself with. 

Actually I was thinking the same about you.  If you think there is a downward trend in all the Catholic forums then maybe it's you.  You seem to be continually looking for an argument.  I consider Miriam a friend.  I don't want to gossip or back bight members in PM.  Say it in the forum, or don't say it at all.

And even that didn't end your gossip and slander.  I ignored this one though.

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 06:08:07 PM
Then you're not a good friend.  A good friend wouldn't let someone like that get away with her arrogance, unless you're blind to it.  You don't get to heaven being smart, scoring points against people in forums.

I would like to add a little to what I already stated above; if the traditionalists felt it necessary to start their own chapels, schools and seminaries, it was also because the felt that they could not preserve the Catholic faith and hand it down to their children in the Novus Ordo parishes and mileu. Msgr. Lefebvre in his book "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics" puts the whole problem into perspective: "They Are Changing Our Religion!"  read online:
http://fsspx.uk/sites/sspx/files/an_open_letter_to_confused_cath_-_archbishop_marcel_lefebvre.pd_.pdf

Love you again, Michael.   Have a blessed Sunday.

Will respond more later.

Quote from: mikemac on August 20, 2017, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 11:15:48 PM
And yet I still offered you an apology.  Do you have anything to apologize for?  Since you and I are fellow traditional Catholics and members of SD forum?

The fact that you started flame wars all over this forum right after your flimsy excuse for an apology nullified your flimsy excuse for an apology.  No I certainly do not have anything to apologize for.  Especially to you.

In reply to your slandering Miriam PM you sent me on August 13th I tried to give you a bit of advise.  That advise for you still holds true.  Actually the whole PM reply is good advise for you but I am specifically referring to the part in red at this time.

Quote from: mikemac on August 13, 2017, 05:53:10 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 05:38:55 PM
Were you serious about Miriam?  Everybody knows Mikemac she's about as arrogant as they come, and she's often twisting what people say, including what she herself said.  Look at how she twisted Pons question about the meaning of the word sodomy. Either she has trouble reading or deliberately makes shit up.  Not somebody you want to be aligning yourself with. 

Actually I was thinking the same about you.  If you think there is a downward trend in all the Catholic forums then maybe it's you.  You seem to be continually looking for an argument.  I consider Miriam a friend.  I don't want to gossip or back bight members in PM.  Say it in the forum, or don't say it at all.

And even that didn't end your gossip and slander.  I ignored this one though.

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 06:08:07 PM
Then you're not a good friend.  A good friend wouldn't let someone like that get away with her arrogance, unless you're blind to it.  You don't get to heaven being smart, scoring points against people in forums.

This is very low and underhanded to disclose my pms without my permission.  And those are hardly "flame wars all over the forum."  The argument was in one thread, and then you took it to the other thread. 

Still I was pmimg you since you personalized this thread (Reply #16) and stand by what I told you. The witchhunt did not start with me.  It started with her one month ago, as her post records will show.  She thinks she has the right to censure people if to her they "reek of modernism."  This kind of daily behavior from some people in the forums is why many good people leave, who would otherwise make for more lively, fruitful discussions.

Just read her trash insulting me last night. Reply #82 and see if she'll have the decency to reply.  Nobody has the right to make those kind of rash judgments to a fellow traditional Catholic and member here, like a crazed One Man Sanhedrim. That post alone proves all this time she thinks most of my posts are "radically against Sacred Tradition."  She's done it with others and I expect her to keep targetting others who don't fit her quasi-magisterial standards..   As for you, you share an arrogant, dishonest, manipulative way of talking to people on this forum.  It comes across like a sadistic sport.   This is my last response to you on this forum. 

That said I find, with a few exceptions, the posters in this forum to be edifying Catholics to get to know.  Unfortunately the "group dynamic," imo, is "devolving," as I tried to discuss in the OP.

Quote from: christulsa on August 20, 2017, 02:17:20 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 20, 2017, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 11:15:48 PM
And yet I still offered you an apology.  Do you have anything to apologize for?  Since you and I are fellow traditional Catholics and members of SD forum?

The fact that you started flame wars all over this forum right after your flimsy excuse for an apology nullified your flimsy excuse for an apology.  No I certainly do not have anything to apologize for.  Especially to you.

In reply to your slandering Miriam PM you sent me on August 13th I tried to give you a bit of advise.  That advise for you still holds true.  Actually the whole PM reply is good advise for you but I am specifically referring to the part in red at this time.

Quote from: mikemac on August 13, 2017, 05:53:10 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 05:38:55 PM
Were you serious about Miriam?  Everybody knows Mikemac she's about as arrogant as they come, and she's often twisting what people say, including what she herself said.  Look at how she twisted Pons question about the meaning of the word sodomy. Either she has trouble reading or deliberately makes shit up.  Not somebody you want to be aligning yourself with. 

Actually I was thinking the same about you.  If you think there is a downward trend in all the Catholic forums then maybe it's you.  You seem to be continually looking for an argument.  I consider Miriam a friend.  I don't want to gossip or back bight members in PM.  Say it in the forum, or don't say it at all.

And even that didn't end your gossip and slander.  I ignored this one though.

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 06:08:07 PM
Then you're not a good friend.  A good friend wouldn't let someone like that get away with her arrogance, unless you're blind to it.  You don't get to heaven being smart, scoring points against people in forums.

This is very low and underhanded to disclose my pms without my permission.  Still I was pmimg you since you personalized this thread (Reply #16) and stand by what I told you. The witchhunt did not start with me.  It started with her one month ago, as her post records will show.  She thinks she has the right to censure people if to her they "reek of modernism."  This kind of daily behavior from some people in the forums is why many good people leave, who would otherwise make for more lively, fruitful discussions.

Just read her trash insulting me last night. Reply #82 and see if she'll have the decency to reply.  Nobody has the right to make those kind of rash judgments to a fellow traditional Catholic and member here, like a crazed One Man Sanhedrim. That post alone proves all this time she thinks most of my posts are "radically against Sacred Tradition."  She's done it with others and I expect her to keep targetting others who don't fit her quasi-magisterial standards..   As for you, you share an arrogant, dishonest, manipulative way of talking to people on this forum.  It comes across like a sadistic sport.   This is my last response to you on this forum. 

That said I find, with a few exceptions, the posters in this forum to be edifying Catholics to get to know.  Unfortunately the "group dynamic," imo, is "devolving," as I tried to discuss in the OP.

Chris, please, step away from this forum for awhile.

Quote from: Lynne on August 20, 2017, 02:53:43 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 20, 2017, 02:17:20 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 20, 2017, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 11:15:48 PM
And yet I still offered you an apology.  Do you have anything to apologize for?  Since you and I are fellow traditional Catholics and members of SD forum?

The fact that you started flame wars all over this forum right after your flimsy excuse for an apology nullified your flimsy excuse for an apology.  No I certainly do not have anything to apologize for.  Especially to you.

In reply to your slandering Miriam PM you sent me on August 13th I tried to give you a bit of advise.  That advise for you still holds true.  Actually the whole PM reply is good advise for you but I am specifically referring to the part in red at this time.

Quote from: mikemac on August 13, 2017, 05:53:10 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 05:38:55 PM
Were you serious about Miriam?  Everybody knows Mikemac she's about as arrogant as they come, and she's often twisting what people say, including what she herself said.  Look at how she twisted Pons question about the meaning of the word sodomy. Either she has trouble reading or deliberately makes shit up.  Not somebody you want to be aligning yourself with. 

Actually I was thinking the same about you.  If you think there is a downward trend in all the Catholic forums then maybe it's you.  You seem to be continually looking for an argument.  I consider Miriam a friend.  I don't want to gossip or back bight members in PM.  Say it in the forum, or don't say it at all.

And even that didn't end your gossip and slander.  I ignored this one though.

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 06:08:07 PM
Then you're not a good friend.  A good friend wouldn't let someone like that get away with her arrogance, unless you're blind to it.  You don't get to heaven being smart, scoring points against people in forums.

This is very low and underhanded to disclose my pms without my permission.  Still I was pmimg you since you personalized this thread (Reply #16) and stand by what I told you. The witchhunt did not start with me.  It started with her one month ago, as her post records will show.  She thinks she has the right to censure people if to her they "reek of modernism."  This kind of daily behavior from some people in the forums is why many good people leave, who would otherwise make for more lively, fruitful discussions.

Just read her trash insulting me last night. Reply #82 and see if she'll have the decency to reply.  Nobody has the right to make those kind of rash judgments to a fellow traditional Catholic and member here, like a crazed One Man Sanhedrim. That post alone proves all this time she thinks most of my posts are "radically against Sacred Tradition."  She's done it with others and I expect her to keep targetting others who don't fit her quasi-magisterial standards..   As for you, you share an arrogant, dishonest, manipulative way of talking to people on this forum.  It comes across like a sadistic sport.   This is my last response to you on this forum. 

That said I find, with a few exceptions, the posters in this forum to be edifying Catholics to get to know.  Unfortunately the "group dynamic," imo, is "devolving," as I tried to discuss in the OP.

Chris, please, step away from this forum for awhile.

I'm done with those people, but thanks for that Lynne.  No I'm not leaving.

Btw you've got over 7000 posts!  Wow. 

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 20, 2017, 08:55:35 AM

I agree with your definition of what it means to be 'Catholic in all that matters'.  But the question remains. Is this possible in the Conciliar Church?

I say it isn't for the simple reaon that Vatican II isn't Catholic.  Which brings me to your 'facts'. 

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 20, 2017, 08:55:35 AM
Your 'facts' are facts as you see them.  The 'facts' as I see them are quite different. Since Vatican II isn't Catholic, it can't have come from the Catholic Church, and those who promote Vatican II aren't Catholic either.

The facts I quoted are objective truths that are aligned with reality.  Like I said, I argue opinions, but I try to not argue facts.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 20, 2017, 08:55:35 AM
The Council wasn't highjacked. The Church was. The Modernists were calling for a Council as early as the 1920s. The preparatory documents were a ruse. Get the Council called by appearing traditional then change the goalpoasts as soon as the Council has convened. This put the Bishops on the back foot and so they signed the documents. Only later did some discern their true nature. Those who went along with it and to this day still promote the Council aren't Catholic.

This is an opinion.  This we can argue.

Let's take the last premise: "...Those who went along with it and to this day still promote the Council aren't Catholic. ..."
How would you know that they aren't Catholic?

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 20, 2017, 08:55:35 AM
Again, there' s a gulf between our positions. Your 'facts' are quite different from my 'facts'.

We can't both be right. Time will tell.

I disagree, the I quoted objective reality. So I can, following the doctrine of dogmatic facts, be assured that V2 was a council of the Catholic Church.

The 'facts' that you cited seem to be a collection of facts and opinions.  Which are objective and which are generalizations???

Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 20, 2017, 09:00:05 AM
The question is: "What is a traditionalist";

From my perspective an individual  traditionalist is what I noted earlier.

What you described seems to be more along the lines of the 'movement' or group.

" ... I always thought Traditional Catholics were simply people who want to be Catholic in all that matters: Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Liturgy...."

Can a person who attends the Novus Ordo Missae be a 'Traditional Catholic'?

I think this is possible, especially as they become more aware of what has happened and what is happening in the Church.

I agree with Chris, people who attend the Novus Ordo Missae, provided they meet the requirements noted by Pope Pius XII are Catholics. 

Whether or not they are good Catholics is up to God.

One thing that I do know, is that those Catholics who strive for perfection with the NOM and all that accompanies it, are gaining more merit than those of us who attend the Traditional Mass.

One theologian that I discussed this with agreed and stated that if they were attending the Tridentine Mass they would be holier still.

Be grateful for what we have been given through no merit of our own.  We don't deserve what we have, cherish it and spread it with gratitude.

http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2016/09/gratitude-most-necessary-virtue.html

Well, this series of posts shows there certainly is no consensus as to what exactly is meant by "traditional Catholicism", let alone a specific set of criteria that isn't arbitrary, self-contradictory or involves special pleading.

If it's rejection of Vatican II, then this is a repudiation of the tenet of Tradition that Rome is the final arbiter in doctrinal matters, not just speculatively but also practically.  (And sedevacantism isn't an answer, since what is "Rome" is to be decided based on the doctrinal decisions it makes.)  It's also inconsistent for the non-geocentrists.  (Ditto for rejection of the N.O.M. as "evil".)  And it's precisely this tenet that all of Catholicism relies on.

If it's simple preference for 1950's style Catholicism, that is arbitrary.  Why not 1850's style Catholicism, or 1990's style?

If it's mere preference for the TLM, then you have to include FSSP/Motu types as "traditional".  And where do Eastern Rites fit in?

And again, I'm glad this forum is not like the modern Left or Orwell's 1984, where any fact that contradicts the Grand Narrative and worldview is simply denied (or "rectified"), and anyone that brings it up is, by that very fact, evil and ignorant.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 20, 2017, 03:58:19 PM
Well, this series of posts shows there certainly is no consensus as to what exactly is meant by "traditional Catholicism", let alone a specific set of criteria that isn't arbitrary, self-contradictory or involves special pleading.

If it's rejection of Vatican II, then this is a repudiation of the tenet of Tradition that Rome is the final arbiter in doctrinal matters, not just speculatively but also practically.  (And sedevacantism isn't an answer, since what is "Rome" is to be decided based on the doctrinal decisions it makes.)  It's also inconsistent for the non-geocentrists.  (Ditto for rejection of the N.O.M. as "evil".)  And it's precisely this tenet that all of Catholicism relies on.

If it's simple preference for 1950's style Catholicism, that is arbitrary.  Why not 1850's style Catholicism, or 1990's style?

If it's mere preference for the TLM, then you have to include FSSP/Motu types as "traditional".  And where do Eastern Rites fit in?

And again, I'm glad this forum is not like the modern Left or Orwell's 1984, where any fact that contradicts the Grand Narrative and worldview is simply denied (or "rectified"), and anyone that brings it up is, by that very fact, evil and ignorant.

Need to add a few more options such as:
Criteria for evaluating V2
Accept: Those elements that simply repeat past dogma / doctrine
Accept with Traditional Interpretation: Those elements that are ambiguous
Reject and request correction: Those elements that contradict dogma / prior doctrine.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 20, 2017, 03:58:19 PM
Well, this series of posts shows there certainly is no consensus as to what exactly is meant by "traditional Catholicism", let alone a specific set of criteria that isn't arbitrary, self-contradictory or involves special pleading.

If it's rejection of Vatican II, then this is a repudiation of the tenet of Tradition that Rome is the final arbiter in doctrinal matters, not just speculatively but also practically.  (And sedevacantism isn't an answer, since what is "Rome" is to be decided based on the doctrinal decisions it makes.)  It's also inconsistent for the non-geocentrists.  (Ditto for rejection of the N.O.M. as "evil".)  And it's precisely this tenet that all of Catholicism relies on.

If it's simple preference for 1950's style Catholicism, that is arbitrary.  Why not 1850's style Catholicism, or 1990's style?

If it's mere preference for the TLM, then you have to include FSSP/Motu types as "traditional".  And where do Eastern Rites fit in?

And again, I'm glad this forum is not like the modern Left or Orwell's 1984, where any fact that contradicts the Grand Narrative and worldview is simply denied (or "rectified"), and anyone that brings it up is, by that very fact, evil and ignorant.

"Traditional Catholicism" as a term depends, imo, on the objective meaning of "Catholic Tradition."  Apparently it was said you have a "subjective view" of it and therefore are ignorant of it.  Which I think is an ad hominem.   The debate is over terms being used as effecively as possible in the forums, and I do think you raise a general good point these terms often become subjectively used in discussions. 

I think we have to carefully stick to how the Church herself defines "Catholic Tradition."  But "traditional Catholicism" in my mind is just a necessary historical term, by the Latin Mass movement as a term that represents it's theological and pastoral approach to the current state of the Church and the perennial religion of our forefathers vs. the movement of Catholic modernism in the Church today.

The problem in my mind is when different groups of trads "dogmatize" their differing opinions about what is "truely traditional Catholic" which leaves little room for discussion or unity in our love of Tradition.  Without some kind of "trad ecumenism" with trads of different stripes reaching out to eachother and tolerating eachother despite our differences, it becomes nothing more than an intellectual masturbation circle, in my observation.

Quote from: tradical on August 20, 2017, 03:17:36 PM
Let's take the last premise: "...Those who went along with it and to this day still promote the Council aren't Catholic. ..."
How would you know that they aren't Catholic?

Vatican II is the synthesis of Modernism.  Modernism is the synthesis of all heresy, according to Pope Pius X

Therefore, anyone who stands by Vatican II and promotes it is standing by and promoting Modernism. Ergo they are heretics and outside the Church.

Again there is a gulf between us.

Quote from: tradical on August 20, 2017, 03:17:36 PM

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 20, 2017, 08:55:35 AM

I agree with your definition of what it means to be 'Catholic in all that matters'.  But the question remains. Is this possible in the Conciliar Church?

I say it isn't for the simple reaon that Vatican II isn't Catholic.  Which brings me to your 'facts'. 

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 20, 2017, 08:55:35 AM
Your 'facts' are facts as you see them.  The 'facts' as I see them are quite different. Since Vatican II isn't Catholic, it can't have come from the Catholic Church, and those who promote Vatican II aren't Catholic either.

The facts I quoted are objective truths that are aligned with reality.  Like I said, I argue opinions, but I try to not argue facts.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 20, 2017, 08:55:35 AM
The Council wasn't highjacked. The Church was. The Modernists were calling for a Council as early as the 1920s. The preparatory documents were a ruse. Get the Council called by appearing traditional then change the goalpoasts as soon as the Council has convened. This put the Bishops on the back foot and so they signed the documents. Only later did some discern their true nature. Those who went along with it and to this day still promote the Council aren't Catholic.

This is an opinion.  This we can argue.

Let's take the last premise: "...Those who went along with it and to this day still promote the Council aren't Catholic. ..."
How would you know that they aren't Catholic?

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 20, 2017, 08:55:35 AM
Again, there' s a gulf between our positions. Your 'facts' are quite different from my 'facts'.

We can't both be right. Time will tell.

I disagree, the I quoted objective reality. So I can, following the doctrine of dogmatic facts, be assured that V2 was a council of the Catholic Church.

The 'facts' that you cited seem to be a collection of facts and opinions.  Which are objective and which are generalizations???

You quoted what YOU think is objective reality. You might be assured that Vatican II was a council of the Catholic Church. But I am equally assured that Vatican II was NOT a council of the Catholic Church. It couldn't have been. Vatican II is the synthesis of Modernism.

Also, you wait for the consecration of Russia to save the Church. While I wait for the Antichrist to make his appearance given that, IMO, Vatican II is the revolt warned about by St Paul in 2 Thess 2. In fact I reckon the Antichrist is alive, right now, waiting for his moment.

As I said, time will tell.

Quote from: christulsa on August 20, 2017, 02:17:20 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 20, 2017, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 11:15:48 PM
And yet I still offered you an apology.  Do you have anything to apologize for?  Since you and I are fellow traditional Catholics and members of SD forum?

The fact that you started flame wars all over this forum right after your flimsy excuse for an apology nullified your flimsy excuse for an apology.  No I certainly do not have anything to apologize for.  Especially to you.

In reply to your slandering Miriam PM you sent me on August 13th I tried to give you a bit of advise.  That advise for you still holds true.  Actually the whole PM reply is good advise for you but I am specifically referring to the part in red at this time.

Quote from: mikemac on August 13, 2017, 05:53:10 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 05:38:55 PM
Were you serious about Miriam?  Everybody knows Mikemac she's about as arrogant as they come, and she's often twisting what people say, including what she herself said.  Look at how she twisted Pons question about the meaning of the word sodomy. Either she has trouble reading or deliberately makes shit up.  Not somebody you want to be aligning yourself with. 

Actually I was thinking the same about you.  If you think there is a downward trend in all the Catholic forums then maybe it's you.  You seem to be continually looking for an argument.  I consider Miriam a friend.  I don't want to gossip or back bight members in PM.  Say it in the forum, or don't say it at all.

And even that didn't end your gossip and slander.  I ignored this one though.

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 06:08:07 PM
Then you're not a good friend.  A good friend wouldn't let someone like that get away with her arrogance, unless you're blind to it.  You don't get to heaven being smart, scoring points against people in forums.

This is very low and underhanded to disclose my pms without my permission.  And those are hardly "flame wars all over the forum."  The argument was in one thread, and then you took it to the other thread. 

Still I was pmimg you since you personalized this thread (Reply #16) and stand by what I told you. The witchhunt did not start with me.  It started with her one month ago, as her post records will show.  She thinks she has the right to censure people if to her they "reek of modernism."  This kind of daily behavior from some people in the forums is why many good people leave, who would otherwise make for more lively, fruitful discussions.

Just read her trash insulting me last night. Reply #82 and see if she'll have the decency to reply.  Nobody has the right to make those kind of rash judgments to a fellow traditional Catholic and member here, like a crazed One Man Sanhedrim. That post alone proves all this time she thinks most of my posts are "radically against Sacred Tradition."  She's done it with others and I expect her to keep targetting others who don't fit her quasi-magisterial standards..   As for you, you share an arrogant, dishonest, manipulative way of talking to people on this forum.  It comes across like a sadistic sport.   This is my last response to you on this forum. 

That said I find, with a few exceptions, the posters in this forum to be edifying Catholics to get to know.  Unfortunately the "group dynamic," imo, is "devolving," as I tried to discuss in the OP.

You are completely out of order with this.

Stop slandering Miriam. She doesn't post trash.

And that's an objective fact if ever there was one.

And you've got the nerve to criticise the way people post on forums.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on August 20, 2017, 05:39:42 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 20, 2017, 02:17:20 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 20, 2017, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 11:15:48 PM
And yet I still offered you an apology.  Do you have anything to apologize for?  Since you and I are fellow traditional Catholics and members of SD forum?

The fact that you started flame wars all over this forum right after your flimsy excuse for an apology nullified your flimsy excuse for an apology.  No I certainly do not have anything to apologize for.  Especially to you.

In reply to your slandering Miriam PM you sent me on August 13th I tried to give you a bit of advise.  That advise for you still holds true.  Actually the whole PM reply is good advise for you but I am specifically referring to the part in red at this time.

Quote from: mikemac on August 13, 2017, 05:53:10 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 05:38:55 PM
Were you serious about Miriam?  Everybody knows Mikemac she's about as arrogant as they come, and she's often twisting what people say, including what she herself said.  Look at how she twisted Pons question about the meaning of the word sodomy. Either she has trouble reading or deliberately makes shit up.  Not somebody you want to be aligning yourself with. 

Actually I was thinking the same about you.  If you think there is a downward trend in all the Catholic forums then maybe it's you.  You seem to be continually looking for an argument.  I consider Miriam a friend.  I don't want to gossip or back bight members in PM.  Say it in the forum, or don't say it at all.

And even that didn't end your gossip and slander.  I ignored this one though.

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 06:08:07 PM
Then you're not a good friend.  A good friend wouldn't let someone like that get away with her arrogance, unless you're blind to it.  You don't get to heaven being smart, scoring points against people in forums.

This is very low and underhanded to disclose my pms without my permission.  And those are hardly "flame wars all over the forum."  The argument was in one thread, and then you took it to the other thread. 

Still I was pmimg you since you personalized this thread (Reply #16) and stand by what I told you. The witchhunt did not start with me.  It started with her one month ago, as her post records will show.  She thinks she has the right to censure people if to her they "reek of modernism."  This kind of daily behavior from some people in the forums is why many good people leave, who would otherwise make for more lively, fruitful discussions.

Just read her trash insulting me last night. Reply #82 and see if she'll have the decency to reply.  Nobody has the right to make those kind of rash judgments to a fellow traditional Catholic and member here, like a crazed One Man Sanhedrim. That post alone proves all this time she thinks most of my posts are "radically against Sacred Tradition."  She's done it with others and I expect her to keep targetting others who don't fit her quasi-magisterial standards..   As for you, you share an arrogant, dishonest, manipulative way of talking to people on this forum.  It comes across like a sadistic sport.   This is my last response to you on this forum. 

That said I find, with a few exceptions, the posters in this forum to be edifying Catholics to get to know.  Unfortunately the "group dynamic," imo, is "devolving," as I tried to discuss in the OP.

You are completely out of order with this.

Stop slandering Miriam. She doesn't post trash.

And that's an objective fact if ever there was one.

And you've got the nerve to criticise the way people post on forums.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I was not and I did not.  She did post trash if you would bother to read.  It is you who are out of order condemning at least half this forum as not being Catholic who accept the Council.  I think Catholicinfo would be more fitting for you and your little sanhedrim.   Im done.

Tensions are obviously high; but I don't think it's right to up and publicly post PMs from someone else.  I thought the "P" stood for "Private," but maybe it's morphed into "Public" if you make me mad? 

Just my opinion -- likely not even worth a whole two cents. 

Hi Lydia, you speak truth. I agree. Love to see you on and hear what you have to say. No matter what you have to say it is done charitably and in a friendly fashion, whether you agree or disagree. Thanks.

Quote from: Miriam_M on August 20, 2017, 01:56:49 AM

Quote from: christulsa on August 20, 2017, 01:01:04 AM
I think Ches' points were about Trad Discussion Forums which is the subject of this thread, and not implying you question his points.  But I dont see anywhere in this thread anyone talking about multiculturalism in the Church ??

Correct.  But his last paragraph reminded me of the frequently introduced false dichotomy that is sometimes explicit argument and sometimes implicit:  that after all, it's all about holiness (yes it is), and some relatively ignorant person might be more holy than many trads (of course), but these are straw men and red herrings that often result in others exploiting that off-topic point to bash traditionalism.  (Forum Rule #5 under Conduct)

The multiculturalism issue (from another thread) is related only in that is an example that not all topics for discussion conform to Traditional Catholic assumptions and that getting exercised and angry that others either don't agree with various OP's or are not interested in the topic shows a failure to understand the basic premises of Traditional Catholicism and how radically different those are from the modernistic suppositions being implied or stated on those threads.

QuoteQuare made the original point about how discussions in the forums can subjectively misuse the term "traditional Catholicism"

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't begin to understand what that is, and further that he doesn't identify as one.  And if you and/or he thinks Catholic Tradition is "subjective," then neither of you understands what it is.

QuoteOtherwise, unless a subject is considered by the Church to be a "closed subject," wouldnt you agree we should tolerate different varieties of opinions in a discussion forum?

Not if the opinions reek of modernism.  Modernism is a heresy.

Let me fix this for you:

Quotewouldnt you agree we should tolerate different varieties of opinions in a traditional Catholic discussion forum?

The opinions you have wanted to "tolerate" or at least explore have been largely radically opposed to Catholic Tradition, such as the inventive theology of the Second Vatican Council.  Why should trads want to "debate" heterodox ideas, and why would you be surprised if they didn't want to?

You seem to want to argue for argument's sake, which many people find to be a waste of time.

See bolded.  Wow.

Any chance you're able to show me the specific posts where I was quote "angry that others did not agree with my Original Posts?"

Or the posts where I was "angry because others are not interested in the topic?"

Or the posts where I said or even implied "Catholic Tradition is 'subjective'?"

Or in what posts did I "explore the 'inventive theology of Vatican II'?"

I mean if you're going to keep making untruthful accusations like that, in fairness you'd refer to specific posts and threads.  But there are none, because I never said those things.

This is my last response to her.  Onward and upward.
[/quote]


Friends, this is my last post about this.

Please read her post above, especially the bolded parts, and my response.  I believe this should settle the conflict, especially if she would be charitable enough to show which posts were me doing what she keeps accusing me of doing for the past month.

Pax.

Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on August 20, 2017, 06:06:52 PM
Tensions are obviously high; but I don't think it's right to up and publicly post PMs from someone else.  I thought the "P" stood for "Private," but maybe it's morphed into "Public" if you make me mad? 

Just my opinion -- likely not even worth a whole two cents.

I warned him in advance that I would if he didn't end the flame wars.

Quote from: mikemac on August 20, 2017, 06:39:02 PM

Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on August 20, 2017, 06:06:52 PM
Tensions are obviously high; but I don't think it's right to up and publicly post PMs from someone else.  I thought the "P" stood for "Private," but maybe it's morphed into "Public" if you make me mad? 

Just my opinion -- likely not even worth a whole two cents.

I warned him in advance that I would if he didn't end the flame wars.

(FIFM.)

Either way, with all due respect, something just seems wrong about it.  But maybe I just don't know or understand what's considered acceptable PM etiquette.

(Does there happen to be a Traditional Catholic consensus on this, by chance?)

Quote from: christulsa on August 20, 2017, 02:17:20 PM

Quote from: mikemac on August 20, 2017, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: christulsa on August 19, 2017, 11:15:48 PM
And yet I still offered you an apology.  Do you have anything to apologize for?  Since you and I are fellow traditional Catholics and members of SD forum?

The fact that you started flame wars all over this forum right after your flimsy excuse for an apology nullified your flimsy excuse for an apology.  No I certainly do not have anything to apologize for.  Especially to you.

In reply to your slandering Miriam PM you sent me on August 13th I tried to give you a bit of advise.  That advise for you still holds true.  Actually the whole PM reply is good advise for you but I am specifically referring to the part in red at this time.

Quote from: mikemac on August 13, 2017, 05:53:10 PM

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 05:38:55 PM
Were you serious about Miriam?  Everybody knows Mikemac she's about as arrogant as they come, and she's often twisting what people say, including what she herself said.  Look at how she twisted Pons question about the meaning of the word sodomy. Either she has trouble reading or deliberately makes shit up.  Not somebody you want to be aligning yourself with. 

Actually I was thinking the same about you.  If you think there is a downward trend in all the Catholic forums then maybe it's you.  You seem to be continually looking for an argument.  I consider Miriam a friend.  I don't want to gossip or back bight members in PM.  Say it in the forum, or don't say it at all.

And even that didn't end your gossip and slander.  I ignored this one though.

Quote from: christulsa on August 13, 2017, 06:08:07 PM
Then you're not a good friend.  A good friend wouldn't let someone like that get away with her arrogance, unless you're blind to it.  You don't get to heaven being smart, scoring points against people in forums.

This is very low and underhanded to disclose my pms without my permission.  And those are hardly "flame wars all over the forum."  The argument was in one thread, and then you took it to the other thread. 

Still I was pmimg you since you personalized this thread (Reply #16) and stand by what I told you. The witchhunt did not start with me.  It started with her one month ago, as her post records will show.  She thinks she has the right to censure people if to her they "reek of modernism."  This kind of daily behavior from some people in the forums is why many good people leave, who would otherwise make for more lively, fruitful discussions.

Just read her trash insulting me last night. Reply #82 and see if she'll have the decency to reply.  Nobody has the right to make those kind of rash judgments to a fellow traditional Catholic and member here, like a crazed One Man Sanhedrim. That post alone proves all this time she thinks most of my posts are "radically against Sacred Tradition."  She's done it with others and I expect her to keep targetting others who don't fit her quasi-magisterial standards..   As for you, you share an arrogant, dishonest, manipulative way of talking to people on this forum.  It comes across like a sadistic sport.   This is my last response to you on this forum. 

That said I find, with a few exceptions, the posters in this forum to be edifying Catholics to get to know.  Unfortunately the "group dynamic," imo, is "devolving," as I tried to discuss in the OP.

I wish I hadn't read any of this; the venom on both sides is making me very uncomfortable.  Maybe I should go re-read Father Faber's "Kindness" as an antidote.

:pray1:
:'(
:grouphug:
:cheeseheadbeer:

We're family, arguments and all.  Please, someone must begin the healing with some serious humble pie - even if you believe you are in the right.  See Litany of Humility - the greatest means of holiness, and the most difficult.

Free download, Fr. Faber's Kindness (thanks NN for the suggestion!)
https://archive.org/details/kindness00fabe (https://archive.org/details/kindness00fabe)

(fwiw, I'm not reading the PM's since they are private, and I want to preserve the dignity of all my forum family members)

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta on August 21, 2017, 12:54:04 AM
:pray1:
:'(
:grouphug:
:cheeseheadbeer:

We're family, arguments and all.  Please, someone must begin the healing with some serious humble pie - even if you believe you are in the right.  See Litany of Humility - the greatest means of holiness, and the most difficult.

Free download, Fr. Faber's Kindness (thanks NN for the suggestion!)
https://archive.org/details/kindness00fabe (https://archive.org/details/kindness00fabe)

(fwiw, I'm not reading the PM's since they are private, and I want to preserve the dignity of all my forum family members)

Ok. Give me a piece (grumbling).  What kind of pie is it?  Cherry?  Pumpkin?  I hope it's pecan, my favorite.   ;D

 :'(

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta on August 21, 2017, 12:54:04 AM
:pray1:
:'(
:grouphug:
:cheeseheadbeer:

We're family, arguments and all.  Please, someone must begin the healing with some serious humble pie - even if you believe you are in the right.  See Litany of Humility - the greatest means of holiness, and the most difficult.

Free download, Fr. Faber's Kindness (thanks NN for the suggestion!)
https://archive.org/details/kindness00fabe (https://archive.org/details/kindness00fabe)

(fwiw, I'm not reading the PM's since they are private, and I want to preserve the dignity of all my forum family members)

Thank you for your kind post, PerEvangelicaDicta. God bless you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3EbIN95K_c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXcbGxvgyR4

:'(


:grouphug:

:pray1: :pray2: :pray3:

+Pax+

Quote from: christulsa on August 21, 2017, 12:58:34 AM

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta on August 21, 2017, 12:54:04 AM
:pray1:
:'(
:grouphug:
:cheeseheadbeer:

We're family, arguments and all.  Please, someone must begin the healing with some serious humble pie - even if you believe you are in the right.  See Litany of Humility - the greatest means of holiness, and the most difficult.

Free download, Fr. Faber's Kindness (thanks NN for the suggestion!)
https://archive.org/details/kindness00fabe (https://archive.org/details/kindness00fabe)

(fwiw, I'm not reading the PM's since they are private, and I want to preserve the dignity of all my forum family members)

Ok. Give me a piece (grumbling).  What kind of pie is it?  Cherry?  Pumpkin?  I hope it's pecan, my favorite.   ;D

(https://catsue.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/pa310666.jpg)

It's "Caramel Apple Humble Pie with Pecan Crumble".  That's CRUMBLE not GRUMBLE!

I think we are both joking around, but this is NOT just a joke, and perhaps I shouldn't have answered in this way.  Read the book "Kindness".

Chris, I had a sneaking suspicion you'd be first at the plate.
(Please, not to insinuate others are not as humble - I know personal schedules preclude forum contributions :) )

QuoteIt's "Caramel Apple Humble Pie with Pecan Crumble".  That's CRUMBLE not GRUMBLE!

LOL!  Very clever!  and looks quite appetizing... it would go well with the coffee we're preparing in the Good Afternoon thread.  Chris, bring it along!

 :grouphug:


"We are all in the same boat in a stormy sea, and we all owe each other a terrible loyalty."
———- G.K. Chesterton


:pray1: :pray2: :pray3:

Quote from: Christe Eleison on August 21, 2017, 08:35:21 AM
:'(

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta on August 21, 2017, 12:54:04 AM
:pray1:
:'(
:grouphug:
:cheeseheadbeer:

We're family, arguments and all.  Please, someone must begin the healing with some serious humble pie - even if you believe you are in the right.  See Litany of Humility - the greatest means of holiness, and the most difficult.

Free download, Fr. Faber's Kindness (thanks NN for the suggestion!)
https://archive.org/details/kindness00fabe (https://archive.org/details/kindness00fabe)

(fwiw, I'm not reading the PM's since they are private, and I want to preserve the dignity of all my forum family members)

Thank you for your kind post, PerEvangelicaDicta. God bless you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3EbIN95K_c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXcbGxvgyR4

:'(


:grouphug:

:pray1: :pray2: :pray3:

+Pax+

That can't be a coincidence these EXACT same scenes of the Passion in these videos, I was reading last night in Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions in the Dolores Passions.

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta on August 21, 2017, 01:58:19 PM
Chris, I had a sneaking suspicion you'd be first at the plate.
(Please, not to insinuate others are not as humble - I know personal schedules preclude forum contributions :) )

QuoteIt's "Caramel Apple Humble Pie with Pecan Crumble".  That's CRUMBLE not GRUMBLE!

LOL!  Very clever!  and looks quite appetizing... it would go well with the coffee we're preparing in the Good Afternoon thread.  Chris, bring it along!

... and I would be right in line!

Looks like you finally got the last word.....

Quote from: St.Justin on August 22, 2017, 03:43:44 PM
Looks like you finally got the last word.....

What do you mean?  Who got the last word? 

Woops double post.

Quote from: St.Justin on August 22, 2017, 03:43:44 PM
Looks like you finally got the last word.....

If you're talking about me St Justin, I wasn't trying to "give the last word." Why that comment?  I was responding to those videos on the Passion that it isn't a coincidence to me I was reading about those scenes that night.  Because they are a much needed lesson for me.

I want very much this "thing" to come to an end too.   But If I'm to be completely silent, is there anybody here who would be willing to address the derogatory comments directed at me IF they continue, as they have been for over a MONTH (before this thread)?  From the same person (s).  If I'm to be silent and the same personal comments continue, is there anybody here willing to ask why, to stand up and say something?  Especially when it keeps happening to certain OTHER forum members??

I'll stop in this thread and I WILL be COMPLETELY silent about this even indirectly. I will pray for Miriam, but I will not respond to her even remotely from now on.  That includes the 2-3 people who joined in.

I have no desire to win or pull people down or make it unpleasant here for anybody.  I just want friendship, good discussion, and to help my fellow Catholics in building up our Faith.  Especially right now in helping cope with some personal issues.  Its hard to find Catholic friendship in the "real world."

Pax.