Francis denies Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix

[mikemac]

Is this hypercritical attacks on Marian devotion aspect new? I do not recall it in the past, and that would be something for sure that I would remember. I firmly remember it being only the domain of Protestants.

It has been going on here for several years.  I think it started in 2017.  There have only been a few posters who do it, but then that sends a signal that attracts others.  And those few tend to be very vocal.

I can understand your surprise.  This certainly is not a position that one would normally associate with traditional Catholicism.

And it should be jumped on like crazy by the administration, but we don't get much moderation around here.

[Insanis]

It has been going on here for several years.  I think it started in 2017.  There have only been a few posters who do it, but then that sends a signal that attracts others.  And those few tend to be very vocal.

I can understand your surprise.  This certainly is not a position that one would normally associate with traditional Catholicism.

That is a weird development. I leave forums for a few years, and look what happens.

Maybe I should have chosen a Rosary based username here.

This was never a problem back in those days, so maybe there was a correlation.

[Tennessean]

Fatima is the way in which so-called Conservatives embrace the idea of the errors of Russia while simultaneously thinking those same people, victims and promoters of such errors, are also the means of Salvation. 

New Evidence Shows Russia Played a Role in Plane Crash That Killed Poland's Top Brass

What does that mean? It isn't Our Lady's fault Russia is belligerent.

[Philip G.]

I hope I did some good, and am not held to task for feeding the troll. I didn't know. It is not something I expected on a Catholic forum.

The diversity of views tolerated on Catholic forums used to be about trousers and skirts on females, rather than whether one believes that previously undisputed Marian devotions are demonic or not or that the works of St. Louis de Montfort are serpentine or not.

Is this hypercritical attacks on Marian devotion aspect new? I do not recall it in the past, and that would be something for sure that I would remember. I firmly remember it being only the domain of Protestants.

Is not your very name an attempt to troll the forum?  Who in their right mind would want to fellowship with a "moderate extremist" whose name is "insane" and posts an introduction filled with nonsense? 

I thought it was bad enough when this forum attracted Melkor a few months ago.  Jayne will be able to retire early at this rate. 

[Insanis]

Is not your very name an attempt to troll the forum? 

No, I explained it.

Who in their right mind would want to fellowship with a "moderate extremist" whose name is "insane" and posts an introduction filled with nonsense?

What are you talking about?

My introduction's title is a reference to a song by Waylon Jennings (.

My introduction starts with references to other forums and the fact I was very active on forums a long time ago and many of the people here are familiar to me from back then.

The "skeletons in the closet" reference is to a public scandal on another forum which I had just learned about  and which the founders of this forum used to use.

As for the rest, I am going by the Form to introduce yourself to SD list of questions. I answer some some questions literally and the rest is pretty straightforward. If you want an explanation of anything in particular, please ask on that thread and I'll answer. It was an introduction: you are free to join in.

Note: something is not necessarily nonsense if you personally do not understand it fully. That is quite audacious to think.

I thought it was bad enough when this forum attracted Melkor a few months ago.  Jayne will be able to retire early at this rate.

How many new active users does this forum get? Jayne has been here for a long time. You can see I am not unknown to this forum from the beginning.

Maybe, just maybe, you are the odd one out?

If you don't like me, Melkor, Jayne, and you apparently provoked a reaction from the admin...maybe you are the one that doesn't fit.

I have been called names and accused of some things, but I was never accused of approaching blasphemy before.

This isn't some political debate or some dispute of opinion of some ordinary thing. This is a matter of some weird small group of people who express an extremely weird antagonism to various Marian devotions. I was very active back then (and my name on forums was a direct reference to the Rosary) and I would have remembered any such perspective on the more active forums.

[Insanis]

"Moderate Extremist" is a reference to my perspective on many things where it is perceived as "extreme", but it is actually moderate.

For example, celibacy and continence are "extreme" in the views of the world, but it is quite moderate (under proper control).

[Melkor]

@Insanis don't even bother with Phillip. He doesn't listen and it's just a waste of your time.

[Insanis]

@Insanis don't even bother with Phillip. He doesn't listen and it's just a waste of your time.

Thanks. It seems a lot of that is going around.

It is very unusual.

I think I'll change my title to make it more useful, although, I didn't think it would ever need to be said here.

[Philip G.]

I have been called names and accused of some things, but I was never accused of approaching blasphemy before.

An accusation is simply that, an accusation.  Am I found guilty?  Maybe in Guantanamo Bay.  You chose your words, not me.  You had your chance to reason unto the said verdict, and you were unable to do so. 

And, don't think I haven't taken notice of your skill at bashing trads under the guise of championing the forum rules against trolling. 

[Insanis]

under the guise of championing the forum rules against trolling.

You asked for opinions from anybody willing to give one.

[Gerard]

Your entire response seems to indicate that it is almost a given that this most be a matter of demonic activity.

"seems" to, to you.  But it doesn't.  It's an exploration of what is plausible. 

I know you won't say this is definitely what you are saying, but it is the only thing you are proposing as an inevitable conclusion of your analysis.

No. It's simply something that presents material for exploration.  On a previous thread, Awkward customer thoroughly investigated the claims that Lucia had a history of telling tales and he explored just how much of the Fatima events had been approved. 

However, you attacked not only the apparitions,

No, I dispute the apparitions.

but the assessment of those who examined it and approved them as being worthy of devotion and containing no errors,

By pointing out that the simple truth is that they are not infallible pronouncements is not an "attack."

and you attacked the words of the prayer I admitted to reciting frequently.

No, I pointed out what was disputable in that prayer.  Now, a lot of the "woke" trad crowd are suddenly jumping onto the Bishop Barron bandwagon. 

What about the other prayers, all purported to be given by an angel agents of God?

Okay, we can look at them, it doesn't matter either way.  Fatima is not fundamentally flawed because of anything potentially good in it.

They are:

My God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love Thee! I beg pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope and do not love Thee. Amen.

Why beg for pardon and not repentance and conversion?  This ignore's God's Justice.  Why should someone who doesn't love God or hope or anything be pardoned and go to Heaven?

O Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I adore Thee profoundly. I offer Thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference by which He is offended. By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg the conversion of poor sinners.

I would want to research this one and check the translations.  I would normally think there is no problem but I'm curious as to whether the infinite merits are from Jesus alone or if the implication is that Mary's merits are infinite as well.  "By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and through the intercession of the Immaculate Hear of Mary would be more clear, correct? 

[Gerard]

Is this hypercritical attacks on Marian devotion aspect new? I do not recall it in the past, and that would be something for sure that I would remember. I firmly remember it being only the domain of Protestants.

It has been going on here for several years.  I think it started in 2017.  There have only been a few posters who do it, but then that sends a signal that attracts others.  And those few tend to be very vocal.

I can understand your surprise.  This certainly is not a position that one would normally associate with traditional Catholicism.

And it should be jumped on like crazy by the administration, but we don't get much moderation around here.

You've already been corrected a few times around here about your penchant for wanting to ban anyone who disagrees with you.   Maybe you should set up your own forum and put in the rules that you ban who you want, when you want for any or no reason at all.  And add "Zuckerberg" to your handle.   You can even call it, "Woke" Catholic Limited and Censored Discussions. 

[mikemac]

Well this time around there seems to be a lot more members standing up to your nonsense.  I mean even before Insanis gave you a good tongue lashing last night.  And I see you've lost a couple of your disciples since that last round too.  Things are looking up around here.  Now we just got to train KK to ban blasphemers.

[Insanis]

Well this time around there seems to be a lot more members standing up to your nonsense.  I mean even before Insanis gave you a good tongue lashing last night.  And I see you've lost a couple of your disciples since that last round too.  Things are looking up around here. 

I noticed that those who initially latch onto some detail in a work they find objectionable, for whatever reason, almost always ignore the context.

In the olden days when I conversed with Protestants, I could almost always get them to reconsider their position just by referencing immediately preceding and following versions of the scripture quotes they used.

Not that any minds would be changed by logic, errors are persistent in ways that still amaze me, it does help eventually get them to be more reserved, knowing that their positions are perhaps not as sure as they were led to believe.

Of course, to save face (ie, their pride), they'd sometimes double down or attempt to twist the words to fit their views. But usually, they'd reflect a little on it, as they might have never considered or noticed it before.

Now we just got... to ban blasphemers.

Do what the Bible says:

...There was a judge in a certain city, who feared not God, nor regarded man. And there was a certain widow in that city, and she came to him, saying: Avenge me of my adversary. And he would not for a long time. But afterwards he said within himself: Although I fear not God, nor regard man, Yet because this widow is troublesome to me, I will avenge her, lest continually coming she weary me.

[Philip G.]

Well this time around there seems to be a lot more members standing up to your nonsense.  I mean even before Insanis gave you a good tongue lashing last night.  And I see you've lost a couple of your disciples since that last round too.  Things are looking up around here.  Now we just got to train KK to ban blasphemers.

I have reported this post for trolling and demonstrating a lack of respect for the moderator.  All you do in these already delicate theological discussions is call for the heads of those who disagree with you.  Shame on you.  You have no business sending out a call to action to weaponize the moderator for you own twisted ends.