Should we have a new moderator? Or ask our old ones to return?

[Non Nobis]

[Non Nobis]... he's just taking out some anger and bitterness on me. That's ok, I forgive him and pray for God's Blessings on him and on his family.

You can very well know his allegations about me are not true at all. Let me backtrack to how this arose: In this thread, https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23006.0  he claimed "God is a Monster", saying things like "The Bible itself is littered with contradictions ... Why should this monster be worthy of our worship" among other expletives it's better not to repeat.

It was littered with both blasphemies and profanities. Though I regretted the moderation didn't at least edit the post to remove those,..

So, there's nothing really here. Let us see what Kaese decides. I agree with Graham and Dellery on having one good sound moderator who will crack down on heresy and rage.

Here, on this forum, in my opinion, Catholics should feel they have a safe refuge here, like a "virtual St. Mary's", as recently discussed. It should be a place for us to be built up and edified in Faith, strengthened in prayer and devotion, growing in Love for God and neighbor etc. I don't want to fight with Live at all. I only want us all to be strong in the Faith.

I first found the God is a Monster thread linked to in the Patriarch Bartholomew thread (not directly). Getting a chance to peruse  the former itself didn't make me feel that I had a safe refuge here in the forum... I thought maybe  you could have dealt with it more discretely somehow.

TheReturnOfLive commented ironically in the Bartholomew thread about  "how you should've been harsher, just because I had a lapse of Faith for one internet post and questioned God's omnibenevolence."

It's not OK to have a lapse of blasphemy; but maybe pulling up what is said over and over doesn't help matters afterwards.  Correct the blasphemy when it is said, don't keep repeating it to beat the sinner over the head about what he said in the past.

[Non Nobis]

One mod needs to be a woman for the Mary's Garden section.

If he'd accept, I'd propose Michael Wilson as a male mod. Lynne or Non Nobis as the female.

I would not want to be the sole or primary moderator for Mary's Garden.  Thanks for the thought. Lynne would be good.   I second Michael Wilson for a main mod.

(I multiply stress just trying to moderate myself!)

[Heinrich]

I was once a bouncer in the scuzzy ends of Indianapolis; hie, I forthwith from hence offer my data byte bouncing bone fides.

[Tales]

I was once a bouncer in the scuzzy ends of Indianapolis; hie, I forthwith from hence offer my data byte bouncing bone fides.

Heinrich's first moderating rule of the day:  can't post without deadlifting 300.

[Xavier]

I thought at ChristMas this would be over: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23106.0

Xavier: "Merry ChristMas, everyone! Hope you all have a blessed and great Feast of Our Lord's Nativity in Church, with Family, Friends and Loved Ones. "

ABC123: And on a personal note to Xavier, forgive my uncharitable and unnecessarily rude posts I have directed toward you. In the spirit of this Holy Day accept my wishes for a Merry Christmas. You always carry yourself with poise and Charity.

Return of Live: Me too. I'm guilty of this.

Xavier: "No worries, ABC123 and Live. Please forgive me too for harshness and unkindness on my part. May God bless you and yours abundantly."

So that was ChristMas 2019, which we just celebrated a Month ago.

I'm still trying to understand why saying Scripture and Tradition supports the Immaculate Conception on a Traditional Catholic Forum should be controversial. I'm forced to respond severely to those who polemically attack the Sacred Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Non, because there is no moderation to prevent it. Do you think freely attacking that dogma or its basis in Scripture and Tradition, which could harm those who are just now coming to strong Faith, will somehow help forum members grow in Faith or Love?

I did not attack Patriarch Bartholomew or any other Orthodox figure of authority at all. The comparison to Nestorius did not come to me, I would compare Patriarch Bartholomew to Patriarch John Bekkus, who almost secured the happy return of Constantinople to the Roman Catholic Church, before being persecuted for it there in Constantinople. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_XI_of_Constantinople

The statement "If you were alive in the 4th to 5th centuries, you would believe that Christianity's claims would be disproven by Nestorius, who was also the Patriarch of Constantinople." reads like a criticism of "Christianity's claims" itself; I totally disagree with such an idea, and as I said, all that it proved was that Nestorius was a heretic who resisted Christ and His Church. "Nestorius only proves he was a heretic, and Pope St. Celestine and Patriarch St. Cyril were heroes of the Faith, nothing more".

I stand by that, Non Nobis. God bless you.

Edit: I freely admit to having desired and dreamed of happy and holy Unia or Union between Eastern and Western Christendom for a long time. I wrote an article on Filioque for One Peter Five for that very purpose some time ago. I believe we will see the completion of efforts to re-unite the Churches under the Roman Catholic Church come to pass in a decade or so. The Greek Orthodox Church is now very, very close to re-union with the Roman Catholic Church, whatever naysayers may say. That's where the attacks are coming from. Let's continue to pray, work and hope for a speedy healing of the ancient schism, and its complete end in our lifetime. I'm changing my profile pic to Patriarch Bartholomew. Do remember it was an Orthodox Patriarch - of Moscow that time - who totally supported Summorum Pontificum of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and the wider restoration of the Tridentine Mass in the Latin or Western Church that followed. We have every reason to believe Tradition will continue to flourish within the Church and will greatly enchance its reach as we welcome back our dearly beloved Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters to come home to Rome.

[abc123]

Xavier-

Do not mistake my criticisms of your posting style or even the apparent motives as being in a spirit lacking charity. Pointing out your refusal to ever engage your interlocutor's points or your tendency to ignore all contrary evidence to your already made-up mind is a valid observation that myself and others have noted. My apology was for those times I did allow my annoyance to get the better of me which resulted in petty and rude responses.

Quit trying to play a victim.

[Graham]

The forum does not even need rules, it needs one active moderator with sound judgment who will suspend and ban people for promoting heresy, not fitting in, being annoying, and so on. It could also use a down vote button.

Not fitting in and being annoying aren't exactly earmarks of someone who should be banned. We are likely all annoying or don't fit in, in the mind of some subset of people on here.

Strong disagree. Along with promoting heresy and plain bad posting they are the best reasons for suspension or banishment.

What we need is Kaesekopf to bring in a few new mods. He doesn't have the time or maybe just the energy to do it on his own. One mod needs to be a woman for the Mary's Garden section.

There isnt any need for multiple mods, particularly when the forum sees maybe 30 posts per day. I doubt that moderation is even required for the private women's subforum.

If he'd accept, I'd propose Michael Wilson as a male mod.

Michael seems like the default choice because he is stable and correct about everything and everyone likes him. I'd argue that his sense of correct Christian behaviour is too tightly buttoned for the role. I would nominate Davis Blank.

[awkwardcustomer]

Here is but one example of how Xavier operates.  There are so many examples, but this one is nice and recent.


Quote from: AwkwardCustomer
Sr Lucy withheld information

Xavier's reply
The canonical enquiry confirmed the supernatural origin of the revelations made to her. You are stubbornly opposed to the Catholic Church's judgment. Prove what you think Sr. Lucy supposedly withheld - and if the Church deemed it irrelevant, who are you to over-rule the Church?


And when I did provide the evidence from Sr Lucy's own memoirs, Xavier ran away without responding.

Actually, I've lost count of the number of times I've been called a heretic on this forum, and insulted in all manner of ways, by various posters.


The thread is from January 12 and has the title -

SSPX Article: Our Lady of Fatima and the Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Xavier becomes very shy in the face of evidence that contradicts his position.  Trouble is, he's not shy at all when it comes to dishing out insults.  If he was so sure of his position, why didn't he address Sr Lucy's own admission that she withheld the Secrets and the Angel apparitions from the Canonical Enquiry and that consequently, the Secrets and the Angel Apparitions are NOT approved by the Church.

So come on Xavier, let's hear what you have to say about Sr Lucy's own admission.

[Xavier]

As I said there: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23211.0 So many anti-Fatimists, so little time.

Also, here's some context, which AC omits: AC:"Sr Lucy withheld information from the Canonical Enquiry into Fatima.  She was under oath at the time.

Is Sr Lucy's dishonesty by omission one of the fruits of Fatima?

And by the way, that image at the top is almost totalitarian."

Innocent Smith: "Lucia was known as a little liar among her immediate and extended family. It is so easy to see through her so called prophecy. In fact, a new name is required to properly describe her prophecy. Call it historical prophecy. Lies, omissions and back dating are the rule of the day here. That such poppycock still inflames the imagination of millions convinces me it is Satanic.

"Lead all souls to heaven". That would include those souls already condemned to Hell. We know sinners only exist in the material world. But notice the prayer does not say, "lead all sinners to Heaven".

Am I supposed to respond to such horrendous attacks on Saintly Sr. Lucia, or to denials of the Immaculate Conception like that mentioned earlier, with "oil, soap and caresses", as Pope St. Pius X put it? "They want to be treated with oil, soap and caresses," he said of his antagonists. "But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don't count or measure the blows, you strike as you can." That's how I respond to the deniers of the Faith, or a slanderer of the Saints. https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/08/22/st-pius-x-the-son-of-a-village-postman-who-urged-modernists-to-be-beaten-with-fists/

In the circumstances, I think my reply was measured and proportionate. This is what I said to Mr. Innocent Smith: "It's you folk who are lying, slandering and calumniating Saintly Sr. Lucia; all for nothing. There have been scores of conversions thanks to Our Lady of Fatima. I posted one who converted from Russian Orthodoxy just some time ago. Does all that mean nothing to you? Our Lady of Fatima informed the Catholic Church's strong response to Communism, that led to its ultimate downfall, in Poland, in Eastern Europe and finally in the erstwhile Soviet Union. Our Lady of Fatima has saved countless souls by the Grace of Her Apparition and even countless lives from a terrible fate and horrible persecution; you all should be thanking Her on bended knee, as good Catholics will do."

I'll get to answering it later on. What Sr. Lucia said, "Whenever I was interrogated, I experienced an interior inspiration which directed me how to answer, without either failing in truth or revealing what should remain hidden for the time being. In this respect, I still have just this one doubt: "Should I not have said everything in the canonical enquiry?" But I have no scruples about having kept silence, because at that time I had as yet no realization of the importance of this particular interrogation. I regarded it, at the time, as being just like the many other interrogations to which I was accustomed. The only thing I thought strange was the order to take the oath. But as it was my confessor who told me to do so, and as I was swearing to the truth, I took the oath without any difficulty. Little did I suspect, at that moment, that the devil would make the most of this, in order to torment me with endless scruples later on. But, thank God, all that is over now ... As for purgatory, I am not in the least afraid of it, from this point of view. I have always obeyed, and obedience deserves neither penalty nor punishment. Firstly, I obeyed the interior inspirations of the Holy Spirit, and secondly, I obeyed the commands of those who spoke to me in His name. This very thing was the first order and counsel which God deigned to give me through Your Excellency. Happy and content, I recalled the words I had heard long ago from the lips of that holy priest, the Vicar of Torres Novas: "The secret of the King's daughter should remain hidden in the depths of her heart." Then, beginning to penetrate their meaning, I said: "My secret is for myself." But now, I can no longer say so. Immolated on the altar of obedience, I say rather: "My secret belongs to God. I have placed it in His hands; may He do with it as best pleases Him." is perfectly in order. No problem there.

[awkwardcustomer]

Here we go again.

Xavier, can you answer the questions without resorting to a wall of text?

1)  Did Sr Lucy admit in her 1941 Memoir that while under oath she withheld the Secrets and the Angel Apparitions from the Canonical Enquiry into Fatima?

Yes or no?

2)  Have the Fatima Secrets and the Angel Apparitions, which Sr Lucy admitted not revealing to the Canonical Enquiry, been approved by the Church?

Yes or no?

[Xavier]

I will answer your questions, Awkward Customer, do also answer mine:

(1) If the Church deemed it irrelevant, and gave full and final approval of Constat Supernaturalitate [Confirmed to be Supernatural] already in 1930 to the Fatima Apparitions even before completing the canonical inquiry, then why the protests now nearly 90 years later? Regarding the canonical inquiry, it was satisfactorily concluded. You want to raise protests about it now 75 years later.

(2) Pope Benedict XIV said: ""When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin." Do you accept the supernatural origin of the Fatima apparitions or not? Yes or no?

Wiki: "The third part of the secret was written down "by order of His Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and the Most Holy Mother" on 3 January 1944.[12] In June 1944, the sealed envelope containing the third secret was delivered to Silva, where it stayed until 1957, when it was finally delivered to Rome.[1]" The Third secret was made known first to Bishop Silva, and later to the Popes in Rome.

Your questions:

(1) You remind me of a prosecutor trying to trap an innocent soul. Well, I'm happy to play defense attorney for Saintly Sr. Lucia.

She took the oath, and she absolutely kept that oath. She took no oath to tell any secret. She made known the secret in 1944.

Note well: "as it was my confessor who told me to do so, and as I was swearing to the truth, I took the oath without any difficulty"

Also: "I have always obeyed, and obedience deserves neither penalty nor punishment". She did as she was asked to do.

Also, if you want to emphasize obedience to Church Superiors so much, are you obeying your Episcopal Superiors in the Church today? These people tried to take advantage of the heroic obedience of a Saintly Nun. That's what you fail to see. The holy Apostles did not hesitate to say "We must obey God rather than men" when being persecuted by the Sanhedrin. Sr. Lucia always obeyed and was persecuted for doing so.

(2) The Full Message of Fatima is approved by the Church. There is not a partial approval here and a half approval there.

[Graham]

I'm not usually one to rebuke people for going off-topic but if you want to discuss Fatima or Xavier's character go to another thread.

[Heinrich]

I'm not usually one to rebuke people for going off-topic but if you want to discuss Fatima or Xavier's character go to another thread.

I nominate Graham as my co moderator.

[awkwardcustomer]

I'm not usually one to rebuke people for going off-topic but if you want to discuss Fatima or Xavier's character go to another thread.

Fair enough.  I only referred to this as but one example of how Xavier argues

So that's it from me on this particular topic on this thread.  No need to continue here.

[Lynne]

The forum does not even need rules, it needs one active moderator with sound judgment who will suspend and ban people for promoting heresy, not fitting in, being annoying, and so on. It could also use a down vote button.

Not fitting in and being annoying aren't exactly earmarks of someone who should be banned. We are likely all annoying or don't fit in, in the mind of some subset of people on here.

Within the Apostles there was a Zealot and a Tax Collector[mortal enemies in the time period], most likely some Essene adherents[basically the Traditionalists/Sedevacantists (they did not recognize the priestly authority of the Sadducees, who controlled the Temple) of their day], and certainly a mix of personalities.

I know there are folks on here who think 90% of my posts are amazing. Some think I'm the biggest idiot to ever own a keyboard. Frankly, they probably both right.

What we need is Kaesekopf to bring in a few new mods. He doesn't have the time or maybe just the energy to do it on his own. One mod needs to be a woman for the Mary's Garden section.

If he'd accept, I'd propose Michael Wilson as a male mod. Lynne or Non Nobis as the female. Probably someone technical for backend stuff and basic admin functions (Lynne could do this, but I wouldn't want to place it on her unless that was her only function). Daniel has a programming background, which would be helpful for writing new functions, but I dunno if he'd want it and he has only apparently recently reverted.

I learned that the programming aspect of this kind of forum is *very* tricky. I'm not up to the task. I also don't feel that I have the theological background/knowledge to be a mod but if others insisted...   

I agree that mods are needed (and voted for that).