Former Catholics trolling the forum

[Pon de Replay]

Not wanting to derail the thread in which this was posted, I will respond here.

If I had a dime for every formerly believing/practicing Catholic madly trolling trad forums I’ve observed over the years, I could take me and the Mrs for a prime rib dinner down at Fleming’s in T-town w all the trimmings.  And they ain’t cheap, folks, no sir.

I am one such former Catholic.  And I would actually prefer not to read or post on this forum, yet nevertheless something compels me.  Why do I still care about any of this stuff?  I think I recently found a plausible answer, written by a blogger who in his youth attended the SSPX seminary in Buenos Aires but dropped out before becoming ordained.  He is no longer a traditional Catholic and now seems to be drawn to the philosophies of Neoplatonism and Vedanta.  But he blogs on the subject of traditional Catholicism with some regularity.

I still maintain a (perhaps unhealthy) obsession with the small Catholic traditionalist movement, at least online. It’s all very “Inside Baseball” for me, a hobby of knowing the obscurities of this ritual or that group. It’s healthier than knowing sports statistics, I suppose, and I have years of emotional and physical distance to not take it too seriously. [...] To the extent I have any affinity for Christianity at all at this point, it takes the form of Roman Catholicism prior to 1960, along with the various weird folk traditions that are more likely to be found in a Latino supermarket next to imported laundry detergent.

Something like this is quite true for me as well.  I spent the better part of two decades studying and obsessing over things that amount to essentially "pointless knowledge" in the secular realm.  I don't regret it, and I've found an outlet for it in writing fiction, but whenever I procrastinate from my writing it's usually in the form of forum posting.  I do apologize, and will try to limit my participation more severely in the future.  I just wanted to suggest that for many of us who do this, it's probably not out of malice or spite (at least not consciously), but more along the lines of old habits not dying gracefully, even when the person is no longer a true believer but more of a hobbyist.

I offer this merely as an explanation, not an excuse.  I do envy the people who are able to shake the dust from their feet and get on with their lives.  Pax.

[Gardener]

[Daniel]

I suppose I too am probably one of the trolls he was referring to.

But earlier this month, I had a second conversion experience. I apologize for all the blasphemous and heretical stuff I've posted over the past year or so. I was wrong and I sincerely hope I haven't led anyone astray or further astray.

[Xavier]

Pon, you are truly a gentleman, even whenever there is respectful disagreement, and so that is never a problem. And Daniel is a model poster.

Dear Daniel, that is wonderful to hear! You are so Blessed by God! And we are sooo happy for you! Hope you abundantly experience God's Love, and He lavishes His Grace upon you, through His Precious Blood, which He shed for you, and dispenses in the Sacraments.

Jesus and Mary love us all soooo much that we would die of joy if we just knew how much They loved us, and how much glory They are preparing for us all in Heaven for all eternity. If we were invited to a great King's Palace, or a beautiful Queen's Garden, for just a few minutes, wouldn't we feel incredibly privileged to be there?! And yet the inheritance we have as sons of God or daughters of Mary, true princes and princesses of the Heavenly Kingdom, is for All Eternity, For Ever and Ever and Ever! We ought to often think of the Beauty and the Wonder awaiting us, and it will fill our hearts with immeasurable joy right away and almost take away by itself every unnecessary worry and anxiety in life. God wants to fill our hearts with His Joy and His Peace, which are fruits of His Holy Spirit, and which He alone can give us in a lasting way. Then, He will help us in all we do as well.

May God Abundantly Bless You Both, Dear Daniel and Pon, and fill your lives with Happiness and every Blessing of His.

In Jesus and Mary,
Xavier.

[GBoldwater]

So, Pon de Replay, you now believe in God, but that after creation, He just abandoned the whole thing and doesn't get involved?

[abc123]

Interesting thread, Pon.

First off I might state that simply posting on this board, even in a contrary way to the majority ethos, does not equal trolling. Trolling in this regard might be actively seeking converts or being intentionally provocative in order to make people mad.

I'm more of a lurker than a poster. This is for several reasons. Firstly I don't have the time or patience for protracted debate. I'm not a very good writer and often times find I have trouble expressing my thoughts whereas I'm much more comfortable speaking in person about matters theological.

I suppose I also come here to observe how traditional Catholics are still able to remain despite what I believe to be solid and convincing evidence that both the trad movement, and the RCC in general, is a doomed movement within a false church. I'll admit to being amazed at some of the things I read here and to my shame I sometimes find it entertaining. That speaks to my own character flaws. But since we're being honest I confess to it.

Perhaps there is a small measure of nostalgia since I was involved with the movement for so long? Who knows.

I would be better served devoting what limited spare time I have to other pursuits.

[Michael Wilson]

I've said this before about abc123; but I am convinced that he will eventually come back to the Church; he is a very upright and good person; he doesn't have the prejudices of those who were bought up anti-Catholic and outside the faith; and the Church is like the Sun; it can't be ignored and it eventually pulls everything into its orbit, that wont resist it.

[dellery]

Nobody in this thread so far seems to be a troll.

Trolls attempt to come across as genuine and relatable so that they can use "jamming" to compell people into resolving a likeable vs. moral contradiction.
None of the posters, so far in this thread, do this.

Its advisable to be more cautious with ideas and people you agree with, than the other way around.

[TheReturnofLive]

Interesting thread, Pon.

First off I might state that simply posting on this board, even in a contrary way to the majority ethos, does not equal trolling. Trolling in this regard might be actively seeking converts or being intentionally provocative in order to make people mad.

I'm more of a lurker than a poster. This is for several reasons. Firstly I don't have the time or patience for protracted debate. I'm not a very good writer and often times find I have trouble expressing my thoughts whereas I'm much more comfortable speaking in person about matters theological.

I suppose I also come here to observe how traditional Catholics are still able to remain despite what I believe to be solid and convincing evidence that both the trad movement, and the RCC in general, is a doomed movement within a false church. I'll admit to being amazed at some of the things I read here and to my shame I sometimes find it entertaining. That speaks to my own character flaws. But since we're being honest I confess to it.

Perhaps there is a small measure of nostalgia since I was involved with the movement for so long? Who knows.

I would be better served devoting what limited spare time I have to other pursuits.

I'm kind of in the same boat.

I mean, Roman-Rite Catholicism was a part of my childhood, growing up. It was a resource for me in trying to cope with problems I had in my life (although it wouldn't be till years later - in fact, recently - where I realized what the problems were and started baby steps in overcoming them). I didn't grow up in the Trad movement, but the Church I did grow up in was more liturgical than the average Novus Ordo Church.

For me, I feel like in multiple ways, many aspects of my life were predicated on things that now seem fundamentally wrong - mainly, my own ego and selfishness, the Roman Catholic Church, conservatism in its purest form, various forms of escapism and running away from the issues in my life - and now that a lot of that is shattered, now that the hook in my mind is unplugged from the Matrix, I'm just kind of looking at the broken pieces of what remains and wondering where to go from here. When the pieces on the floor are just staring at you, and it's hard to look at anything else, I can't help but look at the broken pieces on the floor.

I don't hate Roman Catholics or Roman Catholicism, and I loved many of the things it provided to me. But it's been difficult in grappling with the fact that it seems to me, at this moment in time, hard to justify in its essence.

I don't hate Catholicism - it's just not logically justifiable to me. Not that we should live on logic, but we can't be lying to ourselves.

[Pon de Replay]

So, Pon de Replay, you now believe in God, but that after creation, He just abandoned the whole thing and doesn't get involved?

This will sound like semantics, but I don't believe that with any certainty, no.  It's possible such a scenario is true, but I don't know or believe it to be true.  What you have articulated appears to be deism, but accepting the proofs for an Uncaused Cause does not rule out monism or pantheism.  It could be the case that, far from abandoning creation, God sustains creation at every successive moment.  Or, being fallible, I could be in error in accepting the Uncaused Cause.  There could somehow be an infinite regress of cause and effect which goes beyond my mortal understanding. 

I also don't rule out the possibility of an interventionist God.  It might be true that God sometimes intervenes and other times withdraws, we know not why, only that it must be according to his design.  Or some would say that God's interventions are synonymous with everything that occurs: "I form the light and create the darkness, I make weal and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things."  Each of these positions refutes the other, and at present I have no means of confirming or positively denying any of them.  All I can do is ascribe likelihood.  Monism is probably the highest on my likelihood scale, but I treat it as a hypothesis and not a belief.

[Pon de Replay]

I suppose I also come here to observe how traditional Catholics are still able to remain despite what I believe to be solid and convincing evidence that both the trad movement, and the RCC in general, is a doomed movement within a false church. I'll admit to being amazed at some of the things I read here and to my shame I sometimes find it entertaining. That speaks to my own character flaws. But since we're being honest I confess to it.

Perhaps there is a small measure of nostalgia since I was involved with the movement for so long? Who knows.

Much of this is true for me as well.  I still have my allegiances; I continue to sympathize heavily with particular strands of doctrine and practice over others.  I am dismayed when certain saints I still admire get put down.  Just recently Kreuzritter has been ridiculing St. Jerome as priggish and deranged, or some formulation thereof.  I think St. Jerome's views on sex are beautiful.  I have never liked or understood those who praise sex.  I will concede that it is supremely pleasurable, but aesthetically at least it contains such a horrible degree of baseness and animalism that we should be ashamed of it.  I still have strong ideas about purity, grace, and beauty.  Somebody here once called St. John Chrysostom "proto-Islamic" for his sublime attitude towards dancing (St. John disapproved of it).  What I can't stand is the "proto-Christopher Westean."  But, I try to refrain from getting involved.

[GBoldwater]

So, Pon de Replay, you now believe in God, but that after creation, He just abandoned the whole thing and doesn't get involved?

This will sound like semantics, but I don't believe that with any certainty, no.  It's possible such a scenario is true, but I don't know or believe it to be true.  What you have articulated appears to be deism, but accepting the proofs for an Uncaused Cause does not rule out monism or pantheism.  It could be the case that, far from abandoning creation, God sustains creation at every successive moment.  Or, being fallible, I could be in error in accepting the Uncaused Cause.  There could somehow be an infinite regress of cause and effect which goes beyond my mortal understanding. 

I also don't rule out the possibility of an interventionist God.  It might be true that God sometimes intervenes and other times withdraws, we know not why, only that it must be according to his design.  Or some would say that God's interventions are synonymous with everything that occurs: "I form the light and create the darkness, I make weal and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things."  Each of these positions refutes the other, and at present I have no means of confirming or positively denying any of them.  All I can do is ascribe likelihood.  Monism is probably the highest on my likelihood scale, but I treat it as a hypothesis and not a belief.

You seem to care for REASON, as you participate in it yourself. What becomes of reason when in Scripture things like this were predicted, and ever since then have been fulfilled in every age, only in Catholicism?

"Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?  Otherwise
believe for the very works' sake. Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth
in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall
he do" (John 14:11,12)

"And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick,
raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you
received, freely give" (Matt. 10:7,8)

"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast
out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents;
and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall
lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover... But they going
forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word
with signs that followed." (Mark 16:18,20)

[Pon de Replay]

"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast
out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents;
and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall
lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover... But they going
forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word
with signs that followed." (Mark 16:18,20)

This passage is particularly interesting to me.  The Neoplatonist philosopher (and anti-Christian propagandist) Porphyry seized on it as a promise which Christians suspiciously refuse to test.  He offered that the drinking of poison should, rightly considered, be a ceremonial part of the rites of ordination and adult baptism.  It would affirm true faith.  We do not really see too many instances of this, however.  There are, of course, the snake-handling and strychnine-drinking cults of Appalachia, but they are a Protestant novelty.

I would say that the problem with the other miracle claims is that they tend to rely on second- or third-hand transmission.  Should you want to pursue it, we could start a different thread on miracles, as I have not yet found a convincing refutation of David Hume's Of Miracles.  He essentially says that the reasonable response to a miracle claim would be to ask the question: which is more likely, that the physical laws of the universe were suspended, or that fallible human beings are capable of lying, being mistaken, or getting deceived?

Unrelated, GBoldwater, but is your user name a spoonerism of the late Senator Barry Goldwater?

[Graham]

Individually I like every one of the non-Catholics, quasi-Catholics, and apostates who currently posts here. The trouble is the long growing feeling that you lot are running rampant in a place intended for traditional Catholics. I see this as a question of who belongs here and who does not.

But people will do what they can get away with. The moderators (actually not sure if they exist) don't seem to share this perspective on who belongs. Perhaps because the site cannot seem to achieve sufficient activity or traffic, basically enough interesting discussion, to continue without expanding the sense of who belongs. Anyway, they own the place.

Ultimately this is a problem with pretty deep roots and a convoluted history, even if we confine ourselves to looking at only traditional Catholic online forums. For various reasons many of the most interesting Catholic posters have over the years migrated to different forums or platforms. Or just got on with their lives. It could even be that the heyday of traditionalist forums is simply over.

Be that as it may, my view is that anyone who isn't willing to confess Catholicism as their religion should have limitations on their account, about how often they can post and so on. Perhaps 3 posts per day, and see where that goes. That would be my approach.

[coffeeandcigarette]

Much of this is true for me as well.  I still have my allegiances; I continue to sympathize heavily with particular strands of doctrine and practice over others.  I am dismayed when certain saints I still admire get put down.  Just recently Kreuzritter has been ridiculing St. Jerome as priggish and deranged, or some formulation thereof.  I think St. Jerome's views on sex are beautiful.  I have never liked or understood those who praise sex.  I will concede that it is supremely pleasurable, but aesthetically at least it contains such a horrible degree of baseness and animalism that we should be ashamed of it.  I still have strong ideas about purity, grace, and beauty.  Somebody here once called St. John Chrysostom "proto-Islamic" for his sublime attitude towards dancing (St. John disapproved of it).  What I can't stand is the "proto-Christopher Westean."  But, I try to refrain from getting involved.

Dancing I get, but sex? God created/designed sex. I don't think we have a right to be ashamed of something God created. Are we all going to write Him a letter chastising him for his bad taste?