|
hummm
Nov 16, 2008 17:06:45 GMT
Post by guillaume on Nov 16, 2008 17:06:45 GMT
Sounds like this Forum is dying. No post from anyone in 24 hours. Maybe, thanks to the atheists "friends", who managed well to annoy us with their "no evidence"..... A provocative post, to wake you up.
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 17, 2008 9:28:54 GMT
Post by Harris on Nov 17, 2008 9:28:54 GMT
Yawn...........
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 17, 2008 11:04:45 GMT
Post by redmond on Nov 17, 2008 11:04:45 GMT
Yes guillaume, this forum is dying. But do not blame the atheists. When I joined I did so to generate debate among Catholics even if I was sceptical about the 'traditional' label. I did so to help get this forum up and running. The threads I contributed to got up to near a thousand reads. Soon however I found little or no interest in profound things by 90% of those on this forum, saintstephen being my only supporter. The Atheists I found easy to deal with. They have a one track mind so have the same answer to everything, only their language changes. But even they did not want to know why and how a practicing Catholic like me has jettisoned so much of modern thought in Catholicism and now place my beliefs with the Scholastics. No, instead all I got was smart-ass answers from most, guys skilled in negative rhetoric as I have found in many other forums. Perhaps the most poignant opinion of all arrived when the then administrator commended the atheist inedifix for putting down those 'fundamentalists' like Redmond and Saintstepher who are an 'embarrassment' to Catholicism today. That is one post that has gone abroad to illustrate just how far gone things are in the Church today. In one sentence he summed up the Catholicism, nay, the character of this forum and its contributors. Tradition is REJECTED here, and what now passes for Catholicism within the Church and on this forum will die a death as the modern Church is dying. God will not be mocked.
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 17, 2008 11:22:43 GMT
Post by faithful on Nov 17, 2008 11:22:43 GMT
You are correct, Redmond.
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 17, 2008 11:25:09 GMT
Post by faithful on Nov 17, 2008 11:25:09 GMT
Sounds like this Forum is dying. No post from anyone in 24 hours. Maybe, thanks to the atheists "friends", who managed well to annoy us with their "no evidence"..... A provocative post, to wake you up. Are Traditionalist Catholics really interested in this forum? The evidence suggests no.
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 17, 2008 12:58:42 GMT
Post by Noelfitz on Nov 17, 2008 12:58:42 GMT
Ì am interested in this forum. I think there is a need for it. However I am very busy at present and do not have much time to contribute.
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 18, 2008 10:49:02 GMT
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 18, 2008 10:49:02 GMT
The Atheists I found easy to deal with. They have a one track mind so have the same answer to everything, only their language changes. Ha..... ha... ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D That's a gross stretch of the truth and you know it, Redmond. You got yourself kicked where it hurts then slunk off till you'd thought I'd gone. We showed you up for the hollow fool that you are, and the only sympathy you have on this site is due to the fact that you got beat and made to look stupid. It was fun watching you walk into every single trap I set for you. Fun but easy. You should count your blessings I'm too busy come back and embarrass you again. Stars that whirl faster than light! Tsk, tsk! Satellites that stays in orbit by makey up forces! Tsk, tsk, tsk! And not one shred of evidence at all to support creationism! Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk! Soon however I found little or no interest in profound things by 90% of those on this forum, saintstephen being my only supporter. Profound things? The only profundity in Creationism and Geocentrism are the depths of self-imposed ignorance its adherents plumb in an effort to remain blind to what's actually going on around them. As for SaintStephen, he may have supported you, but he proved himself a outright liar and a troll, but moreover, never once added anything salient to your poorly formed, backward looking, unscientific, demonstrably erroneous theor... therrr... thththth... no I can't do it... I can't use that noble word to describe the fallacies you spread. I
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 19, 2008 13:38:35 GMT
Post by hackenslash on Nov 19, 2008 13:38:35 GMT
Yes guillaume, this forum is dying. But do not blame the atheists. When I joined I did so to generate debate among Catholics even if I was sceptical about the 'traditional' label. I did so to help get this forum up and running. The threads I contributed to got up to near a thousand reads. Soon however I found little or no interest in profound things by 90% of those on this forum, saintstephen being my only supporter. The Atheists I found easy to deal with. They have a one track mind so have the same answer to everything, only their language changes. But even they did not want to know why and how a practicing Catholic like me has jettisoned so much of modern thought in Catholicism and now place my beliefs with the Scholastics. No, instead all I got was smart-ass answers from most, guys skilled in negative rhetoric as I have found in many other forums. Perhaps the most poignant opinion of all arrived when the then administrator commended the atheist inedifix for putting down those 'fundamentalists' like Redmond and Saintstepher who are an 'embarrassment' to Catholicism today. That is one post that has gone abroad to illustrate just how far gone things are in the Church today. In one sentence he summed up the Catholicism, nay, the character of this forum and its contributors. Tradition is REJECTED here, and what now passes for Catholicism within the Church and on this forum will die a death as the modern Church is dying. God will not be mocked. Is that a universal law? I find it very easy to mock god, or at least the idea of god. FSM for the win! (all praise his mighty noodliness - r'amen.
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 19, 2008 20:04:49 GMT
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Nov 19, 2008 20:04:49 GMT
Perhaps the most poignant opinion of all arrived when the then administrator commended the atheist inedifix for putting down those 'fundamentalists' like Redmond and Saintstephen who are an 'embarrassment' to Catholicism today. That is one post that has gone abroad to illustrate just how far gone things are in the Church today. In one sentence he summed up the Catholicism, nay, the character of this forum and its contributors. Tradition is REJECTED here, and what now passes for Catholicism within the Church and on this forum will die a death as the modern Church is dying. God will not be mocked. Tradition is most certainly not rejected here and Redmond has been free to put forward his arguments even if he has sometimes come close, in my view, to offending against standards of civil discourse and debate. Both the former moderator and I before him have banned users who insulted other members (though in one case the ban was a temporary one with a warning, but the member concerned did not become active again when the ban expired). Now that I find myself again, for the time being, in the position of moderator I will enforce those standards even more strictly. But there is also the question of the quality of posts. One tries to be tolerant of the fact that not everyone can express themselves with the same degree of fluency or clarity, but there is no place here for posts that are just nonsense or for members whose posts are consistently of that kind. As regards Tradition, what does that mean? Like many of the most active Catholic members here, I myself am strongly Traditionalist in that I attend (as far as possible) only Masses in the Extraordinary Form and I repudiate liberal attempts (in the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II") to twist or misrepresent the Council's conclusions. But I am not a sedevacantist and I do not hold with fundamentalist readings of Scripture, and I will argue with those who are and do. Are Traditionalist Catholics really interested in this forum? The evidence suggests no. Again, what are Traditionalist Catholics? In any case the Forum itself is just a forum. It is inherently neutral. If "Traditionalist Catholics" of whatever cast want to make the Forum more representative of their views, they have only to post on it.
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 20, 2008 12:38:55 GMT
Post by redmond on Nov 20, 2008 12:38:55 GMT
I am sorry folks, but I get the feeling that the majority on this forum consider my contributions of little value. I really have had enough. This shall be my last post.
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 25, 2008 18:22:00 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Nov 25, 2008 18:22:00 GMT
Sorry to see you go, Redmond, but I'm afraid I agree that your contributions have been ofg little value. May God enlighten you. I haven't posted for the last fortnight because of work pressure (I've been away) but I'll do my best to liven things up. As I said in an earlie rpost I'm a biritualist - I attend the Tridentine Rite when I can and am in the LMSI but my position is probably closest to "reform of the reform". I think the way the Novus Ordo was formulated and imposed was an act of spiritual and cultural barbarism on a par with Le Corbusier's postwar proposal to flatten the whole of central Paris and replace it with tower-blocks (Bugnini's "I know better than anyone and no real liturgical spirituality existed before me" attitude was quite Corbusian), but I don't believe the Church of 1958 was perfect and I don't think all our problems would be solved by simply abolishing the NO in favour of the TLM.
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 25, 2008 18:41:58 GMT
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Nov 25, 2008 18:41:58 GMT
I'm a biritualist - I attend the Tridentine Rite when I can [...] but my position is probably closest to "reform of the reform". I think the way the Novus Ordo was formulated and imposed was an act of spiritual and cultural barbarism on a par with Le Corbusier's postwar proposal to flatten the whole of central Paris and replace it with tower-blocks (Bugnini's "I know better than anyone and no real liturgical spirituality existed before me" attitude was quite Corbusian), but I don't believe the Church of 1958 was perfect and I don't think all our problems would be solved by simply abolishing the NO in favour of the TLM. That describes my own position perfectly.
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 25, 2008 20:55:21 GMT
Post by Noelfitz on Nov 25, 2008 20:55:21 GMT
I am just an ordinary Catholic. I support our priests, bishops and the Pope.
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 26, 2008 9:19:26 GMT
Post by Harris on Nov 26, 2008 9:19:26 GMT
As regards Tradition, what does that mean? Again, what are Traditionalist Catholics? Traditionalist Catholics are Roman Catholics, or people who identify as Roman Catholics, who believe that there should be a restoration of many or all of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentations of Catholic teachings which prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).[1] Traditionalist Catholics should not be confused with mainstream Catholics who have a broadly "traditional" or conservative outlook. While these latter "conservative Catholics" resemble traditionalists in their concern for Catholic orthodoxy, they tend to accept in general terms the legitimacy and appropriateness of the changes associated with the Council, in what Pope Benedict XVI has approvingly called the "hermeneutic of continuity", as opposed to the "hermeneutic of discontinuity" with which some, including traditionalists themselves, interpret it. Is that you Saint Stephen? Its only your second post but already I've come to the conclusion its you!
|
|
|
hummm
Nov 26, 2008 11:05:30 GMT
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 26, 2008 11:05:30 GMT
There is no point in defining what a traditional Catholic is or who is one. I just read a blog out there which identifies the President of the LMSI with the Devil (maybe it is true...does anyone have opinions?)
I think the process is laboured - there was once a spoof website on behalf of a purported organisation called the Society of St Pius I (St Pius I was an early pope and martyr) which lambasted all traditional Catholics including the Societies of St Pius V and St Pius X as sell outs to modernism, for example, for choosing Mass in Latin instead of the original Greek. The motto said 'to be more traditional, you'd have to be Jewish'.
My point is that the question a lot of Catholics should ask themselves is are they Catholics, full stop, without qualifications - traditional, conservative, moderate, progressive, liberal, radical. Perhaps the most important question is rather, can they credibly use the moniker 'orthodox with a small o'. The trouble here is, as a Church of England bishop of the 18th century whom I cannot name said: Orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is another man's doxy. In the case of Catholicism, we have the magesterial, of which the Second Vatican Council is part - I am excluding the wilder interpretations of this.
One word - biritualist. This would mean, say, attending either the traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass in the vernacular and Latin and also attending eastern Catholic liturgies - as far as I am aware of the only regular Eastern Catholic liturgy in Ireland is the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (Ukrainian Greek Catholic) in St Kevin's Oratory, Pro-Cathedral, Dublin at 4 pm on Sundays (open to correction here). Some one who attends both the Latin Mass (extraordinary form) and the Ordinary form in Latin, English, Irish or the immigrants' languages (Polish or Lithuanian principally, but there are many more) is a biformalist rather than a biritualist. That's my interpretation of Summorum Pontificum.
|
|