|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Dec 21, 2008 21:56:39 GMT
Again, I have been getting messages from members with different views. I would be grateful for yours.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Dec 21, 2008 21:58:16 GMT
What is all about ?
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Dec 21, 2008 22:00:49 GMT
Your poll is quite non answering questions........ so far........
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Dec 22, 2008 12:20:49 GMT
Same questions as before.
1) How will you police it? You are hardly ever online and you cant vet every new user who comes on. Are you going to just ban people the moment they express a non catholic thought?
2) In this case whos version of catholicism are you going to go with? You have banned the many incarnations of SaintStephen in at least three of its forms now. Are you just going to ban anyone who isnt as much or as little of a catholic as you are?
In essence where do you draw the line? Will you not end up whittling membership down until the only people left agree with each other on so many things there is nothing left to discuss except a lot of mutual pattings on the back and people telling each other "oh youre so right!"
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Dec 22, 2008 12:21:52 GMT
Their contributions stimulate debate and keep catholics on their toes.
I appriciate their contributions.
People who are confident in their beliefs must be allowed to be challanged about them and articulate why they believe what they do.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Dec 22, 2008 13:15:45 GMT
Their contributions stimulate debate and keep catholics on their toes. I appriciate their contributions. People who are confident in their beliefs must be allowed to be challanged about them and articulate why they believe what they do. Of course, as an atheist yourself, you would appreciate their contributions....
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Dec 22, 2008 13:47:29 GMT
Their contributions stimulate debate and keep catholics on their toes. I appriciate their contributions. People who are confident in their beliefs must be allowed to be challanged about them and articulate why they believe what they do. Of course, as an atheist yourself, you would appreciate their contributions.... Why do you say that I am an athiest guillaume?
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Dec 22, 2008 16:33:36 GMT
Of course, as an atheist yourself, you would appreciate their contributions.... Why do you say that I am an athiest guillaume? You sound like..... And always being friendly to the atheists posts.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Dec 22, 2008 16:55:48 GMT
Why do you say that I am an athiest guillaume? You sound like..... And always being friendly to the atheists posts. Well there you go. Concrete evidence ladies and gentlemen. Being freindly to everyone no matter what their beliefs means you do not believe in God! All that remains now is for you to quote me where I made a post that makes me appear like an athiest.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Dec 22, 2008 23:40:50 GMT
1) How will you police it? You are hardly ever online and you cant vet every new user who comes on. Are you going to just ban people the moment they express a non catholic thought? 2) In this case whos version of catholicism are you going to go with? You have banned the many incarnations of SaintStephen in at least three of its forms now. Are you just going to ban anyone who isnt as much or as little of a catholic as you are? Good questions. I'm not saying I want to close the forum to non-Catholic members; I want to know what people want me to do. I am disappointed that we seem to get only traditionalist Catholics and atheists here, which leads to discussions with no hope of consensus or changing people's minds; when I set up the forum I hoped to get liberal Catholics and non-Catholic Christians here as well but they just haven't appeared. Perhaps they talk to one another somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Dec 23, 2008 8:34:00 GMT
Actually the conversation above shows exactly the kind of problem you are opening yourself to. As soon as person A does not like person B you will have them questioning each others real catholic or Christian nature. Didn't at least one user and Gabriel start calling each other heretics and not really people of faith recently?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 24, 2008 17:51:21 GMT
I initially thought Harris was an atheist but over time I realised he wasn't. Guillaume - just expressing respect for the atheists/ saying they are useful participants to some extent doesn't mean you are an atheist yourself. Hazel - accusations of heresy will always fly to some extent where traditionalist Catholics are concerned. We're a bit like Trotskyites in that respect. Redmond (who has now left this board) certainly thinks I am a material heretic, and I certainly think he is one. Guillaume supports the Society of St. Pius X and is to that extent a schismatic; in his eyes we of the Roman obedience have succumbed to watered-down neo-Catholicism and it is he and his friends who uphold the faith handed down by the saints; he tries to convince us we are mistaken and we try to convince him. A material heretic is someone who holds a position which contradicts the Catholic faith without realising that this is the case. A formal heretic, like yourself, realises that his beliefs contradict the Catholic faith and says so much the worse for the Catholic faith. In terms of effective debate I prefer the second to the first because at least we know where we are - I would like to see a couple of intelligent Protestants on this board to help sharpen everyone's understanding. One problem you atheists have is that you see Catholicism in terms of blind faith and a party line handed down from the Pope, rather than the rich treasury of thoughts and devotions, the debates and discussions on how best to make our faith incarnate in the world, which we see from inside. The problem with this forum is that it faces two ways - a resource for Catholics discussing Catholicism, and a way of presenting Catholicism to non-Catholics like yourself. Let me tell you a parable. Once a group of Irish-speakers decided to form a club to practice their Irish conversation and generally advance the purpose of reviving Irish. They hired a two-room premises. Through oversight or over-confidence their articles of association did not specify that non-Irish speakers or opponents of the revival of Irish were precluded from joining (though the purposes of th eclub prevented such people from gaining control of it.) The Irish-speakers soon found themselves irritated by having to use English to members who did not understand Irish or were unwilling to use it, and holding constant arguments about whether reviving Irish was a goo dthing when they wanted to discuss more specifically revivalist topics. The committee then decided that English could be spoken and non-revivalists could socialise in one room, while the other was reserved for Irish-speakers only. This worked for a while. Soon, however, the English-speakers got bored, felt they were being frozen out by the Irish-speakers, and started to move back into the other room while remaining unable or unwilling to speak Irish there. This is the situation in which we now find ourselves, and this is what the moderator is trying to address.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 24, 2008 17:52:50 GMT
By the way, Hazel, may the Sun of Righteousness warm and illumine us all this year. You see only the material Sun, we see a spiritual sense as well, but we can all agree that it is a good thing that the darkest nights are past and the day is getting longer again. Merry Christmas!
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Dec 27, 2008 12:01:52 GMT
Guillaume supports the Society of St. Pius X and is to that extent a schismatic; in his eyes we of the Roman obedience have succumbed to watered-down neo-Catholicism and it is he and his friends who uphold the faith handed down by the saints; he tries to convince us we are mistaken and we try to convince him. Hold on. I do not support the SPPX 100 %, far from it. If they know how many times i am going the Paul VI mass, they will have a heart attack or kill me. ;D As the SPPX is far from me, I am not attending their mass in Ireland at all. I do not "unsupport" or condemn them though either. There is some good in the Society, but things as well extremely disturbing. Greetings.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 27, 2008 19:26:21 GMT
Fair enough, Guillaume. Thanks for the clarification and sorry if I misunderstood you. Perhaps we could discuss this further on the old "SSPX schism" thread?.
|
|