Man this forum is dead.

[Bonaventure]

Social media has cut down on forum use, but also the Catholic world has gotten a lot less interesting since the beginning of the current papacy. 

There is no mass influx of people to tradition (like what drove me and others my age to other forums), and the groups that exist now are just plodding along until there's some other influx or burst of people into the "movement." 

Besides, once you get an "old" (in terms of longevity, not age!) forum base, the "interesting" debates that used to occur here or on other forums get really, really tiring.  For example, I have no interest in hashing out a discussion on baptism of desire, on the differences in grace, or really the NO vs the TLM.  But, the community here is worthwhile and worth preserving.  And the information and knowledge that is here both in the archives and in the posters are still pretty big.

The forum is dead is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If you think its dead, why not post more, and post about things that you think are engaging?

What more can any of us do?

I was a very active poster from 2012 to 2014.

On FE I racked up over 20,000 posts. I think I got to #3 on the leaderboard there, behind Joao and ONeill.

As many folks have stated in this thread, really what more can be said?

How many more threads are we going to have on the same old topics?

I have made a concerted effort to post more and even to start new threads, and some of these have not gotten a single response.

What I would like the most is the social element, but that seems dead. It isn't 2012 and strangers aren't going to open up to each other the way that @Greg, @james03, or @Kaesekopf have with me.

Numerous "in real life" friends of mine do not and have not posted here in many years.

@MilesChristi, @Cesar_Augustus, @The Harlequin King  are some I can think of.

There hasn't really been an influx of a new breed or generation. FE had. There was the hipster type crew: @LouisIX, @Hat And Beard.

There was a contingent of Australians who came on board.

Controversial posters, like DK, scipio_a abd DK vs VoxPop and @rbjmartin.

We had social threads. @Mithrandylan started a fantasy league. @The Curt Jester started a karaoke contest.

Now, that might as well be a different world.

[awkward customer]

How many more threads are we going to have on the same old topics?
 

Why have you banned criticism of Fatima?  And why is Sedevacantism confined to its own subforum?

If controversy isn't allowed, or has to be kept under control, all we're going to get are threads on "the same old topics".

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Why have you banned criticism of Fatima?

Public "criticism" of constat de supernaturalitate apparitions is a sin in which the rest of us don't want to participate.

[awkward customer]

Why have you banned criticism of Fatima?

Public "criticism" of constat de supernaturalitate apparitions is a sin in which the rest of us don't want to participate.

Perhaps I should have been more specific.

The 1917 Fatima apparitions in the Cova da Iria have been approved by the Church.  But the Secrets and the Angel apparitions have not been approved and it is these that I was referring to since they form the bulk of what most people think of as Fatima. 

Since the Church hasn't approved the Fatima Secrets and Angel apparitions, I can't see why they can't be discussed on a Catholic forum, especially as past discussions have shown that there are issues with the Secrets especially which need to be discussed.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Since the Church hasn't approved the Fatima Secrets and Angel apparitions, I can't see why they can't be discussed on a Catholic forum, especially as past discussions have shown that there are issues with the Secrets especially which need to be discussed.

The First Saturdays devotion is also part of a later apparition, and it's so much a part of Catholicism everywhere, both in the TLM and the NO, that you would be effectively (albeit not formally) putting yourself outside the Church.

There are some obvious issues with the different accounts of the third secret, and not all of the accounts can be true, but I don't think it's anywhere near as scandalous to have issues with that.

[Baylee]

I have made a concerted effort to post more and even to start new threads, and some of these have not gotten a single response.

I appreciate this because I am less likely to dig through older threads on my own.  It has given me an opportunity to see whether I want to chime in on them.

[james03]

Bonaventure has to bring C.E. back.  I enjoined sicking her on people, especially if we found out their birthday.  There was no way you could get mad at someone so chipper.

[awkward customer]

The First Saturdays devotion is also part of a later apparition, and it's so much a part of Catholicism everywhere, both in the TLM and the NO, that you would be effectively (albeit not formally) putting yourself outside the Church.

There are some obvious issues with the different accounts of the third secret, and not all of the accounts can be true, but I don't think it's anywhere near as scandalous to have issues with that.

But the Fatima First Five Saturdays seems to have replaced an older First Twelve Saturdays devotion.

The practice of reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on the First Saturday was initiated in Rovigo, Italy, by Maria Dolores Inglese, a Servite tertiary in 1889. She started among her friends the pious practice of "Communion in Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary". The practice was endorsed by Bishop Antonio Polin of the Diocese of Adria and was taken up by sodalities throughout Italy and elsewhere.  On July 1, 1905, Pope Pius X approved and granted indulgences for the practice of the First Saturdays of twelve consecutive months in honor of the Immaculate Conception. This practice greatly resembled the reported request of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Pontevedra apparitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Saturdays_Devotion

Twelve First Saturdays has become Five First Saturdays.

[awkward customer]

The First Saturdays devotion is also part of a later apparition, and it's so much a part of Catholicism everywhere, both in the TLM and the NO, that you would be effectively (albeit not formally) putting yourself outside the Church.

I've just realised what you said here.  What's this threat?  Are we living in a tyranny?

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Twelve First Saturdays has become Five First Saturdays.

Do the original Twelve include sacramental confession and meditations on the Rosary?

I've just realised what you said here.  What's this threat?  Are we living in a tyranny?

Speaking publicly against approved apparitions and approved devotions certainly looks like a case of private judgment, the usurpation of the authority who initially approved them.

With one caveat:  The Divine Mercy is a bit of a special case because it had been condemned before it was approved, so I don't think anyone who is confused about that would be culpable for their confusion.

[awkward customer]

Twelve First Saturdays has become Five First Saturdays.

Do the original Twelve include sacramental confession and meditations on the Rosary?

I've just realised what you said here.  What's this threat?  Are we living in a tyranny?

Speaking publicly against approved apparitions and approved devotions certainly looks like a case of private judgment, the usurpation of the authority who initially approved them.

With one caveat:  The Divine Mercy is a bit of a special case because it had been condemned before it was approved, so I don't think anyone who is confused about that would be culpable for their confusion.

The Twelve First Saturdays was approved by Pope Pius X, so I assume so.  However I'm going to check as I might start saying it.

As for your second point, making wild claims based on little more than speculation isn't recommended either.

There's no controversy around the Fatima First Five Saturdays, only around the Secrets and their implications.  And the Secrets have not been approved by the Church.

The Fatima Secrets are not Dogma.

[Kent]

Social media has cut down on forum use, but also the Catholic world has gotten a lot less interesting since the beginning of the current papacy. 

There is no mass influx of people to tradition (like what drove me and others my age to other forums), and the groups that exist now are just plodding along until there's some other influx or burst of people into the "movement." 

Besides, once you get an "old" (in terms of longevity, not age!) forum base, the "interesting" debates that used to occur here or on other forums get really, really tiring.  For example, I have no interest in hashing out a discussion on baptism of desire, on the differences in grace, or really the NO vs the TLM.  But, the community here is worthwhile and worth preserving.  And the information and knowledge that is here both in the archives and in the posters are still pretty big.

The forum is dead is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If you think its dead, why not post more, and post about things that you think are engaging?

What more can any of us do?

I was a very active poster from 2012 to 2014.

On FE I racked up over 20,000 posts. I think I got to #3 on the leaderboard there, behind Joao and ONeill.

As many folks have stated in this thread, really what more can be said?

How many more threads are we going to have on the same old topics?

I have made a concerted effort to post more and even to start new threads, and some of these have not gotten a single response.

What I would like the most is the social element, but that seems dead. It isn't 2012 and strangers aren't going to open up to each other the way that @Greg, @james03, or @Kaesekopf have with me.

Numerous "in real life" friends of mine do not and have not posted here in many years.

@MilesChristi, @Cesar_Augustus, @The Harlequin King  are some I can think of.

There hasn't really been an influx of a new breed or generation. FE had. There was the hipster type crew: @LouisIX, @Hat And Beard.

There was a contingent of Australians who came on board.

Controversial posters, like DK, scipio_a abd DK vs VoxPop and @rbjmartin.

We had social threads. @Mithrandylan started a fantasy league. @The Curt Jester started a karaoke contest.

Now, that might as well be a different world.

I'm a relatively new account and post infrequently, but I have used trad forums in varying capacities since 2008 or so. Many of the names you mention are familiar to me from old forums. I have, over the years, spent a fair amount of time considering the nature of these places (online communities in general and trad forums in particular) and might offer a few insights. All these insights are arguable, but I think there's at least some truth to them.

First, there are two ways to have an active forum (not mutually exclusive). One is to have a very rich and active social life of the forum; the other is to take a very hands-off approach to moderating controversy.  A forum like Fisheaters (at least back in the day; I haven't used it regularly in a while) had a rich and active social life. A forum like Cathinfo takes a very hands-off approach to moderating controversy. This forum, although I've not been a regular user of it for its duration, seems to lack both an active social life and a hands off approach to moderating controversy.

You can't force a social life onto a forum. You can do a certain amount of organizing outside/behind the scenes to encourage people to use the forum, but if they show up and see there's minimal activity they probably won't stay (if you can get them to sign up in the first place).  The social life of a forum has to happen organically. Your recent posts might help the social life of the forum, but you definitely can't do it alone.

It is easier to allow controversy and mud slinging than it is to grow a rich social life. The problem with taking a hands off approach to controversy is more or less self evident. It tends to encourage rage posting and bad ideas. Finding the balance between a Catholic freedom of speech (which would allow for searching questions and the charitable, if even contentious, arguing of different ideas/positions) and a non-Catholic freedom of speech (which would allow copious error) is extremely difficult. The only forum I have ever see manage this balance correctly is the old Bellarmine Forums.  And that was a unique place. I don't think it can be replicated. Not easily.

I think if SD allowed sedevacantist discussion outside the sede ghetto, it would be much more active. But I understand that if sede discussion was allowed elsewhere, the whole forum would essentially just become one big sede debate. I don't even think the sedes want that .  But if the administrators of this forum want to see activity increase then they need to open the lid on what is the most talked about idea in traditionalism: Is this guy Francis a true pope?

For goodness' sake, even Patrick Coffin asked that question!  In keeping that kind of talk in just one place, SD is cutting its legs off. People would rather use Cathinfo or Twitter, where they can discuss the big question of the day without having to worry they're breaking the rules. Do lurkers even know about the sede subforum? It's a lot to ask people to create an account just to read stuff.  I think the last guy who did that is verified with multi-personality disorder, yes? Well, that should tell you something.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Speaking publicly against approved apparitions and approved devotions certainly looks like a case of private judgment, the usurpation of the authority who initially approved them.

As for your second point, making wild claims based on little more than speculation isn't recommended either.

How is this speculative?

The local ordinary has the authority to approve apparitions as worthy of belief.

If I go around declaring that an approved apparition is not worthy of belief, in what universe can someone interpret my actions as not being a case of private judgment?

There's no controversy around the Fatima First Five Saturdays, only around the Secrets and their implications.  And the Secrets have not been approved by the Church.

The Fatima Secrets are not Dogma.

We're in agreement on this.  I mentioned it a few posts back.

[Kent]

Continued...

People change over time. People who were single in 2011 and alienated from any real life Catholic community have gotten married, had kids, and formed close IRL relationships with Catholics at their chapels.  They organize troops of St. George outings, they direct choirs, they help their kids with  catechism homework, and so on. The social needs of those users have developed and matured and there simply is not the same kind of need for online social interaction as there was ten years ago.  (Mind you this is setting aside more tragic stories, like those who've fallen off the map because a loss of faith or family dysfunction, etc.).

Forums have always attracted lonely people (social media is the same thing). Doesn't mean everyone on a forum is desparately lonely, but to the degree that a forum is a proxy for IRL Catholic interaction, you'll find people who are using forums to sate their loneliness.

The younger lonely people are on Twitter. I don't like tradcat Twitter all that much because it is incapable of hosting proper conversations and exchanges of ideas. But it's very active and very social. People who were using forums in the 2010s grew up around an Internet that didn't have "platforms" like Twitter. But the gen z types landed in an Internet where Twitter was what you use. And since Twitter isn't moderated by Catholics, you don't get your hand slapped for talking about the wrong thing in the wrong place.

Now, you'll have a hard time selling current Twitter users on a forum as a substitute for online social life. It's just not the same.

The unique value of a forum is the medium and longformat exchange of ideas. So I think if you want to see activity increase, you focus on that aspect. 

[Bonaventure]

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/Smileys/default/undecided.gif
Why have you banned criticism of Fatima? 

Over the last couple of weeks, there has been a disturbing trend in the content of posts here, focused primarily upon lay rejection and challenging of church-approved private revelation and apparitions.  This has caused tensions to flare up, arguments to run rampant, and a general disturbance amongst the Forum to occur. 

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, "When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them."

Given the volatility of posting regarding private revelation recently and in the past, the following is now implemented.

It is not permissible to call into doubt, oppose, or question private apparitions that are approved of by the proper ecclesiastical authorities.  When an apparition is approved, the Church has performed the relevant inquiry and investigation and has found nothing in it contrary to the faith or to good morals.  As laity, our competency does not extend into that realm.

The compliance and humility of all posters is appreciated in advance.

And why is Sedevacantism confined to its own subforum?

You've only been registered here since 2022.

@Kaesekopf f and I have been in this business since the mid 2000s.

There is a sedevacantism subforum because that is where any debate and discussion will be limited.

On this forum and others, threads would just devolve into "well of course x, y, and z are happening. It's a false church/seat is vacant" etc.

If controversy isn't allowed, or has to be kept under control, all we're going to get are threads on "the same old topics".

Controversy is allowed. A huge impetus to creating this forum was the owner of Fisheaters banning any discussion of sedevacantism,  sedevacantists, and even hardline SSPXers. Here, sedes are not only tolerated, but welcomed, in moderation, and calling sedevacantism or sedevacantists names or non-Catholic results in a ban.

It wasn't like that on FE, or many other forums. But you've only been on here since 2022. Try Angelqueen circa 2007 where any mention of sede, sedevacantist, sedevacantism, or SC was filtered and changed to "BLEEP!"

Or FE circa 2012, where criticizing Ratzinger, the New Mass, or V2, resulted in mass banning.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks