Divisive Tactics Among Traditional Catholics

[Rence]

No, this idea that the church allows abortion in cases where the mother is in danger of death is falsehood. That’s an abomination. I don’t know where you heard that information, but it’s erroneous.

I think littequestion knows that.

I have been told by extreme pro-lifers that pregnant women can’t get treatment for medical conditions when they’re pregnant. I think that’s what littlequestion is talking about. I don’t know why she keeps saying “abortion” other than the medical treatment she’s thinking of is being erroneously labeled as such by someone else - which is what she’s upset about. But I believe she knows very well that abortions are not allowed by the Church. She already acknowledged it.

I believe her bone of contention is that some people are mislabeling medical interventions as an abortion, when they’re not. She’s also upset that people erroneously claim that the Church doesn’t allow pregnant women medical interventions that are necessary to their health and wellbeing…which they don’t. The Chuch does allow it. What the Church forbids is directly killing the fetus.

I have also been told by people that removing a dead fetus is an abortion, which it’s not. So I can relate to her frustration.

 

[Rence]

Rence and Bluelake, thank you, we all posted at once.

I think this thread ran off topic but c’est la vie.

The word “abortion” has been diluted in the statistics and literature by both sides. The pro-choicers in the medical field have used it in medical forms to refer to any and all pregnancy terminations, such as calling miscarriages “spontaneous abortions” and the other side has not allowed us to talk about the various kinds of abortions and have some rational education for our young women about these things.

In fact, women who have lost pregnancy to miscarriage have been refered to the Rachel project for grief counseling when that is a project for assisting women to recover from having had abortions, and of course they have intense grief and remorse.

But can’t these people see how horrible it is for a woman who has tried everything and lost her baby to be told as a Catholic to go to the post-abortion counselors, as if she had chosen to murder her child?

That is an abomination. It is the disgusting result of what the pro-life extremists have done in their emotional exploitation of this issue.

Well I think that using the word “abortion” on a Catholic forum is not sending out the message you are intending, if you are intending to write about a miscarriage. To ease the confusion, I would recommend that when you mean “spontaneous abortion” or “miscarriage” that you just say just “miscarriage”. The word “abortion” has negative connotations, especially here. So one would want to use words that can be understood without confusion. That way everyone is on the same page.

I don’t know anything about Rachel project…do they also counsel women who have miscarried by natural means? If they do, then it would make sense that women who have miscarried would be referred to them.

 

[littlequestion]

Well I think that using the word “abortion” on a Catholic forum is not sending out the message you are intending, if you are intending to write about a miscarriage. To ease the confusion, I would recommend that when you mean “spontaneous abortion” or “miscarriage” that you just say just “miscarriage”. The word “abortion” has negative connotations, especially here. So one would want to use words that can be understood without confusion. That way everyone is on the same page.

I don’t know anything about Rachel project…do they also counsel women who have miscarried by natural means? If they do, then it would make sense that women who have miscarried would be referred to them.

I never intended to discuss this subject but Dihydrogen brought it up because I pointed out how dangerous it is to have lists of names of how people vote on such controversial and oversimplified topics and she then proved my point by painting me as someone who is a heretic just because I recognize that we really cannot know all the aspects of these questions.

The Rachel project requires women who have had miscarriages to be treated the same as women who have had abortions, in the same counseling groups and they are ecumenical. They include Lutherans. The Lutherans own the clinics at which the most notorious late-term abortions and live-birth infanticides are done. That is why Tiller was in the ELCA. ELCA pastors counsel in the Rachel projects alongside Catholic ones because we are sooo ecumenical…

ELCA and other activists have used abortion in the high schools to recruit young women into their counseling groups. When this kind of thing is being mixed with Rachel projects and Catholics cannot start separate projects for our women who did not even try to have an abortion, we have a problem.

This is what pro-life Catholics are really supporting: priestsforlife.org/prochoice/holyabortion.htm

Read that. It is the abomination of Scriptural reference because it is the path through which the performance of elective abortion is in fact being brought into the Sanctuary.

The pro-life movement has known about this for YEARS and it is buried off in a back file and NEVER discussed and these priestsforlife have remained silent about it while using all the over-simplified rhetoris of the pro-life fanatics in order to silence those of us who have tried to confront and stop this kind of filth. This file is why the Rachel project forces miscarriage-affected women to mix with abortion-choosers. The Rachel project counselors tells women to make altars to their grief and it is a horrific abomination for any Catholic who understands what these women, including nuns, are actually doing. Naive Catholics who never learned the doctrines and barely attend Mass won’t see it just like they don’t see the problem with mixing Protestant rituals in the Mass, because it is not obvious to the uncatechized. The women with the miscarriages are exploited by the pro-choice nuns and protestant counselors to make the abortion choosers think it was ok after all, no different after all, and then on top of it they include this truly horrible altar/shrine exercise that is just spiritually the most filthy thing and it is a miracle that any of us can see past those people to still remain faithful to the Church.

 

[Rence]

I never intended to discuss this subject but Dihydrogen brought it up because I pointed out how dangerous it is to have lists of names of how people vote on such controversial and oversimplified topics and she then proved my point by painting me as someone who is a heretic just because I recognize that we really cannot know all the aspects of these questions.

The Rachel project requires women who have had miscarriages to be treated the same as women who have had abortions, in the same counseling groups and they are ecumenical. They include Lutherans. The Lutherans own the clinics at which the most notorious late-term abortions and live-birth infanticides are done. That is why Tiller was in the ELCA. ELCA pastors counsel in the Rachel projects alongside Catholic ones because we are sooo ecumenical…

ELCA and other activists have used abortion in the high schools to recruit young women into their counseling groups. When this kind of thing is being mixed with Rachel projects and Catholics cannot start separate projects for our women who did not even try to have an abortion, we have a problem.

Ok, so you’re saying that the CC doesn’t have any resources for women who have naturally lost their babies, and that instead, they are referred to Rachel project, where women who have elected to have an abortion are being counseled.

If that’s true, that is a problem. But what do you suggest can be done about it? Someone has to be willing to head such a project and pull together the resources.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

I think littequestion knows that.

I have been told by extreme pro-lifers that pregnant women can’t get treatment for medical conditions when they’re pregnant. I think that’s what littlequestion is talking about. I don’t know why she keeps saying “abortion” other than the medical treatment she’s thinking of is being erroneously labeled as such by someone else - which is what she’s upset about. But I believe she knows very well that abortions are not allowed by the Church. She already acknowledged it.

I believe her bone of contention is that some people are mislabeling medical interventions as an abortion, when they’re not. She’s also upset that people erroneously claim that the Church doesn’t allow pregnant women medical interventions that are necessary to their health and wellbeing…which they don’t. The Chuch does allow it. What the Church forbids is directly killing the fetus.

I have also been told by people that removing a dead fetus is an abortion, which it’s not. So I can relate to her frustration.

I believe LittleQuestion is using the term ‘abortion’ correctly and that is why she is being misunderstood. Technically the word ‘abortion’ means the premature expulsion of the embryo or fetus from the womb–regardless of how or why this occurs. An abortion may be spontaneous (a miscarriage) or induced. Induced abortions can be therapeutic (medically necessary) or elective (for personal reasons). As a result of the pro-life/pro-choice debate, the word is generally used nowadays to refer to elective abortions and many people have forgotten its original meaning.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

I type so slowly I think my post was superfluous before I even clicked submit.

 

[littlequestion]

No, it was not superfluous at all. Thank you for posting.

You know, we can only have this conversation because it is buried underneath the original topic. If we posted it openly the activists would flood it to squash the discussion.

 

[adrift]

I never intended to discuss this subject but Dihydrogen brought it up because I pointed out how dangerous it is to have lists of names of how people vote on such controversial and oversimplified topics and she then proved my point by painting me as someone who is a heretic just because I recognize that we really cannot know all the aspects of these questions.

The Rachel project requires women who have had miscarriages to be treated the same as women who have had abortions, in the same counseling groups and they are ecumenical. They include Lutherans. The Lutherans own the clinics at which the most notorious late-term abortions and live-birth infanticides are done. That is why Tiller was in the ELCA. ELCA pastors counsel in the Rachel projects alongside Catholic ones because we are sooo ecumenical…

ELCA and other activists have used abortion in the high schools to recruit young women into their counseling groups. When this kind of thing is being mixed with Rachel projects and Catholics cannot start separate projects for our women who did not even try to have an abortion, we have a problem.

This is what pro-life Catholics are really supporting: priestsforlife.org/prochoice/holyabortion.htm

Read that. It is the abomination of Scriptural reference because it is the path through which the performance of elective abortion is in fact being brought into the Sanctuary.

The pro-life movement has known about this for YEARS and it is buried off in a back file and NEVER discussed and these priestsforlife have remained silent about it while using all the over-simplified rhetoris of the pro-life fanatics in order to silence those of us who have tried to confront and stop this kind of filth. This file is why the Rachel project forces miscarriage-affected women to mix with abortion-choosers. The Rachel project counselors tells women to make altars to their grief and it is a horrific abomination for any Catholic who understands what these women, including nuns, are actually doing. Naive Catholics who never learned the doctrines and barely attend Mass won’t see it just like they don’t see the problem with mixing Protestant rituals in the Mass, because it is not obvious to the uncatechized. The women with the miscarriages are exploited by the pro-choice nuns and protestant counselors to make the abortion choosers think it was ok after all, no different after all, and then on top of it they include this truly horrible altar/shrine exercise that is just spiritually the most filthy thing and it is a miracle that any of us can see past those people to still remain faithful to the Church.

You seem to be very upset. Perhaps that is why what you wrote does not make sense. I tried to understand what you were saying about priest for life but the link didn’t seem to have anything to do with your comment.

The pro-life movement has known about this for YEARS and it is buried off in a back file and NEVER discussed and these priestsforlife have remained silent about it while using all the over-simplified rhetoris of the pro-life fanatics in order to silence those of us who have tried to confront and stop this kind of filth.

What was known for YEARS? What filth?
I don’t know of any program designed for women who have suffered a loss. Why would a woman seek out a program for women who have aborted. It makes no sense.

There are good reasons to id in a poll. If you don’t like it, don’t answer the poll. The pole will tell you that it is public and that you can be id so I don’t see the problem. Other than controlling others.

 

[littlequestion]

What was known for YEARS? What filth?
I don’t know of any program designed for women who have suffered a loss. Why would a woman seek out a program for women who have aborted. It makes no sense.

There are good reasons to id in a poll. If you don’t like it, don’t answer the poll. The pole will tell you that it is public and that you can be id so I don’t see the problem. Other than controlling others.

You got it: controling others.

As for the link to what has been known for years, and the filth: the document on “Holy Abortion” describes the method by which a “sacred ritual” of abortion is in fact being introduced into all the churches. That is very clearly connected to my remarks. My remarks might not make sense because I am talking about something that is unfamiliar, but if you read past the first page (which is all authors info, etc) and start reading the text, you will see that it is such a description.

As far as women “seeking out” the program for women who have aborted, we don’t. But if we talk to a pastoral counselor about a miscarriage and if we are suffering grief from it, we get referred to the Rachel project and then we get emotionally ambushed by the fraudulent counseling that it contains. It is like psychological rape.

Here is part of the ceremonies in which the ecumenical abortionists recruit young women to a priestesshood based on deliberate sacrifice of the first-born (which they have used in high schools by counseling girls away from parents and in some cases delaying the abortions in order to have maximum effect on the girls, making them pliable recruits) :

In a “Ceremony for Closure after an Abortion,” Unitarian Universalist minister Rev. Dr. Kendyl Gibbons has the minister say, “Not every essence shall come to be/It is in choosing that we are free.” In a similar vein, retired United Methodist Bishop Melvin Talbert interprets Psalm 8 as a text about stewardship and responsibility for something that is not our own, creation, but for which we have responsibility and are “accountable” to God. In the next breath, however, he claims that “God has set us free to be responsible or irresponsible, to be accountable or unaccountable.” This self-contradictory theology, which perpetuates the myth of the “sovereign self” (Richard John Neuhaus), is offered as an argument against any political or legal “limiting or taking away our freedom of conscience.”

 

[adrift]

You got it: controling others.

As for the link to what has been known for years, and the filth: the document on “Holy Abortion” describes the method by which a “sacred ritual” of abortion is in fact being introduced into all the churches. That is very clearly connected to my remarks. My remarks might not make sense because I am talking about something that is unfamiliar, but if you read past the first page (which is all authors info, etc) and start reading the text, you will see that it is such a description.

As far as women “seeking out” the program for women who have aborted, we don’t. But if we talk to a pastoral counselor about a miscarriage and if we are suffering grief from it, we get referred to the Rachel project and then we get emotionally ambushed by the fraudulent counseling that it contains. It is like psychological rape.

Here is part of the ceremonies in which the ecumenical abortionists recruit young women to a priestesshood based on deliberate sacrifice of the first-born (which they have used in high schools by counseling girls away from parents and in some cases delaying the abortions in order to have maximum effect on the girls, making them pliable recruits) :

I believe you are misreading it.
Here is what was in the preface

Holy Abortion? is a well-documented, reasoned exposé of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). In publishing it, the National Pro-life Religious Council (NPRC) hopes, indeed prays, that it will spark a renewed and painfully honest conversation about the never-ending question of the role of religion and religious groups in shaping society’s disposition toward the most vulnerable members of the human family, the unborn, and the mothers and fathers who are inseparably linked to them.

To loose a child is beyond description. Not every woman experiences it the same way. Society does not really understands it. It is pushed into a corner. You never get over it.

 

[littlequestion]

What am I misreading? The document describes the deliberate and well-thought out campaign to insert sacrificial infanticide into the center of mainstream Christian liturgy. The authors are incredibly polite in their presentation, but they are critically presenting the simple facts.

What else could this be?

And to refer to an abortion, which is a willful act of killing, as the same thing as a “loss” due to miscarriage is just an unfathomable disconnect from reality. It is an insult to even the most challenged intellect to present the freely chosen act of murder as anything like an innocent loss of life. That is in fact psychological rape. It is the intrusion of a murderous intent into an unwilling and unconsenting mother of a desired but lost child.

 

[Malleus_01]

I have to interject a couple things into the discussion. Number one - living the Catholic Faith isnt compatible with the moral values every noncatholic society and most certainly not the societal norms of these United States. The United States wasnt formed on Catholic principles. It was formed on the masonic principles of Liberty , Fraternity and Equality. So when Catholics actuallly attempt to hold to the moral teachings of the Church - inevitably people who do not who happen to share this country with us may not understand why some of these Moral Laws are non negotiable. As Catholics we are called first and foremost to respect the laws of GOD os as not to offend him and THEN to love our Neighbor as ourselves for that Love of GOD. Never are we to put neighbor before GOD. Therefore - Homosexuality / Abortion / Artificial Birth Control are non negotiable. So do Traditional Catholics divide or by having both an understanding of and a respect for and a fidelity with the laws of GOD so that they MEAN something in everyday life - by that very fact do those subjects themselves divide?

I think that question needs to be asked first

 

[tweetymom]

I have read all the posts and wow I still am confused I thought LQ was complaining and angry at CAF, How did abortion and everything elsr get here. Maybe I am stupid but I really don’t get this thread. Sounds like a whole lot of venehem and anger to me.

 

[littlequestion]

I have to interject a couple things into the discussion. Number one - living the Catholic Faith isnt compatible with the moral values every noncatholic society and most certainly not the societal norms of these United States. The United States wasnt formed on Catholic principles. It was formed on the masonic principles of Liberty , Fraternity and Equality. So when Catholics actuallly attempt to hold to the moral teachings of the Church - inevitably people who do not who happen to share this country with us may not understand why some of these Moral Laws are non negotiable. As Catholics we are called first and foremost to respect the laws of GOD os as not to offend him and THEN to love our Neighbor as ourselves for that Love of GOD. Never are we to put neighbor before GOD. Therefore - Homosexuality / Abortion / Artificial Birth Control are non negotiable. So do Traditional Catholics divide or by having both an understanding of and a respect for and a fidelity with the laws of GOD so that they MEAN something in everyday life - by that very fact do those subjects themselves divide?

I think that question needs to be asked first

The actual original questin had nothing to do with abortion, life issues etc but this became a tangent. The actual original question was a plea that CAF stop allowing the fight-baiting tactics of posting polls that collect names of who supports and who opposes
SSPX. They promote the idea that we as laity should be calling our own brethren mortal sinners for attending SSPX Masses IN SPITE OF THE POPE’S OWN WORDS lifting the 20-yrs-ago exscommunication of some SSPX bishops. This is CAF deciding to turn one set of laity against another, which is divisive.

We really do NOT have the right as Catholics to judge the licitness of Mass said by any priest or bishop who is also a member of a society that is controversial. There are in fact many societies that “are not in communion” with Rome because they are independent, and that means they do not have authority, but it does NOT mean we get to play armchair-pope and declare mortal sin on each other. That’s like excommunicating someone because the priest of the Mass he attends is a member of the Elks Club, for example. The Mass that is said by SSPX priests is an approved and accepted older form of the Mass. It is not sinful for any CAtholic to attend and receive the Sacraments from such a priest. The SSPX does NOT claim to over-ride the Pope, but CAF keeps allowing the lies to be posted for no purpose other than to divide and confuse Catholics who are interested in Traditional forms.

The life/moralityquestion was tangential about four posts in.

I have read all the posts and wow I still am confused I thought LQ was complaining and angry at CAF, How did abortion and everything elsr get here. Maybe I am stupid but I really don’t get this thread. Sounds like a whole lot of venehem and anger to me.

Venom???

Posting polls that collect names so that people can be forced to take sides is poisonous. CAF allows it.
I am not the one who is “venomous” tweetybird. I don’t collect names of people based on how they vote. The people who are so sweet and coy and pretend they are catholics are the ones doing that. Traditional Catholics are not Protestants. We do not reserve the right to call someone else a mortal sinner just because we don’t like the political stand of their priest. If he is an ordained priest and the Pope has openly said that the bishops over him are NOT EXCOMMUNICATED then it would a grave sin for us to accuse the laity attending that priests’ Mass of sinning by doing so. That is what CAF is encouraging. It angers me. There is no venom in righteous anger at the sneaky tactic that CAF is allowing Jo Benedict to uphold. She has made her own hatred of traditionals known in other threads in which she called us “anti-semitic” and closed down the boards when she was moderator before, and after she refused to fix a deliberately misleading link in the stickies so that it would stop fueling these mortal-sin/excommunication slanders, CAF returned her to the moderating position over the Tradtional forum.

I am not venomous to notice that CAF is allowing those name-collecting polls to stay up while CAF placed an overtly hostile moderator in charge of the Traditional forum. There can be no other purpose to that decision than to break up and divide decent, moral Catholics. CAF is using its reseources to encourage persecution of traditonal catholics by collecting votes and showing the names of the voters.

 

[Malleus_01]

I agree that some SSPX members use divisive tactics. But the same can be said of Conservative Catholics who attend the Latin Mass from those who attend the Novus Ordo Missae and Liberal Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Missae as well. And all of the above detest sedevacantists and consider them akin to the samaritans as in the days Our Lord walked the earth. And even within these aforementioned groups - there is division. Now you may or may not agree with WHY this is occuring - but to me it is the fruit of Heresy. Heresy by its very nature is divisive. The Heresy is Modernism condemned by Pope St Pius the X , Pope Leo the XIII , Pope Pius the IX , Pope Pius the XI and Pope Benedict XV. Some blame misinterpretation of Vatican II - But misinterpretation of Vatican II by and of itself isnt the Culprit. The Culprit is the Heresy of Modernism called by Pope St Pius the X as the Synthesis of all Heresies.

Pax

 

[littlequestion]

I agree that some SSPX members use divisive tactics. But the same can be said of Conservative Catholics who attend the Latin Mass from those who attend the Novus Ordo Missae and Liberal Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Missae as well. And all of the above detest sedevacantists and consider them akin to the samaritans as in the days Our Lord walked the earth. And even within these aforementioned groups - there is division. Now you may or may not agree with WHY this is occuring - but to me it is the fruit of Heresy. Heresy by its very nature is divisive. The Heresy is Modernism condemned by Pope St Pius the X , Pope Leo the XIII , Pope Pius the IX , Pope Pius the XI and Pope Benedict XV. Some blame misinterpretation of Vatican II - But misinterpretation of Vatican II by and of itself isnt the Culprit. The Culprit is the Heresy of Modernism called by Pope St Pius the X as the Synthesis of all Heresies.

Pax

The person posting calls herself a traditional yet she does that, and has all kinds of metal-rock and modernist style interests in her profile. This is the kind of overt chicanery that Patrick Eastin was NOT allowing because he was deleting and reprimanding people who did that. CAF took him out and put Benedict in at exactly the time that the excommunication was lifted and Benedict took out all resource references that backed Eastin up regarding the excommunication slander and so now the chicanery is back.

I have noticed in several boards that some people who never even were Catholic have posted as if they are SSPX members just so they can be trolls. For them is is like mooning the cops on a drunken spree. That’s all that is, when the excommunication posts are put up, it is trolling for a fight. And because CAF allows the names to show in polls if the troll chooses that option, it is a very serious issue.

 

[tweetymom]

The actual original questin had nothing to do with abortion, life issues etc but this became a tangent. The actual original question was a plea that CAF stop allowing the fight-baiting tactics of posting polls that collect names of who supports and who opposes
SSPX. They promote the idea that we as laity should be calling our own brethren mortal sinners for attending SSPX Masses IN SPITE OF THE POPE’S OWN WORDS lifting the 20-yrs-ago exscommunication of some SSPX bishops. This is CAF deciding to turn one set of laity against another, which is divisive.

We really do NOT have the right as Catholics to judge the licitness of Mass said by any priest or bishop who is also a member of a society that is controversial. There are in fact many societies that “are not in communion” with Rome because they are independent, and that means they do not have authority, but it does NOT mean we get to play armchair-pope and declare mortal sin on each other. That’s like excommunicating someone because the priest of the Mass he attends is a member of the Elks Club, for example. The Mass that is said by SSPX priests is an approved and accepted older form of the Mass. It is not sinful for any CAtholic to attend and receive the Sacraments from such a priest. The SSPX does NOT claim to over-ride the Pope, but CAF keeps allowing the lies to be posted for no purpose other than to divide and confuse Catholics who are interested in Traditional forms.

The life/moralityquestion was tangential about four posts in.

Venom???

Posting polls that collect names so that people can be forced to take sides is poisonous. CAF allows it.
I am not the one who is “venomous” tweetybird. I don’t collect names of people based on how they vote. The people who are so sweet and coy and pretend they are catholics are the ones doing that. Traditional Catholics are not Protestants. We do not reserve the right to call someone else a mortal sinner just because we don’t like the political stand of their priest. If he is an ordained priest and the Pope has openly said that the bishops over him are NOT EXCOMMUNICATED then it would a grave sin for us to accuse the laity attending that priests’ Mass of sinning by doing so. That is what CAF is encouraging. It angers me. There is no venom in righteous anger at the sneaky tactic that CAF is allowing Jo Benedict to uphold. She has made her own hatred of traditionals known in other threads in which she called us “anti-semitic” and closed down the boards when she was moderator before, and after she refused to fix a deliberately misleading link in the stickies so that it would stop fueling these mortal-sin/excommunication slanders, CAF returned her to the moderating position over the Tradtional forum.

I am not venomous to notice that CAF is allowing those name-collecting polls to stay up while CAF placed an overtly hostile moderator in charge of the Traditional forum. There can be no other purpose to that decision than to break up and divide decent, moral Catholics. CAF is using its reseources to encourage persecution of traditonal catholics by collecting votes and showing the names of the voters.

Sorry it still sounds like mostly anger. I have been called a lot of things here on lots of threads, but thats not my problem. Send a poll my way for whatever and i will vote and sign my name, matters not to me.

 

[littlequestion]

Sorry it still sounds like mostly anger. I have been called a lot of things here on lots of threads, but thats not my problem. Send a poll my way for whatever and i will vote and sign my name, matters not to me.

It is not about you or about Baptists, tweetymom, so why do you want to characterize this very important issue for Catholics as one of emotion? We Catholics have a Church to defend and we have the right to defend it against sneak attacks and lies. You don’t understand trhe issues because you are not a Traditional Catholic. There is plenty of room in the Catholic church for many levels and styles of devotion, but there is no room for deliberate lies and frankly it is not “nice” to expect those of us who see the lies to remain silent and allow innocent Catholics to be accused of a mortal sin when it is NOT a mortal sin and the Pope himself has addressed it.

You afre not a traditional Catholic, so naturally it does not matter to you if Traditional Catholics are divided up while you can stand by and watch the fight and accuse me of venom. That is venomous. Why is a Baptist/Catholic ecumenist here, if not to promote the Protestantization of our Catholic Church? That is why you want to see the names on polls. it is not about you, Tweetymom, but it is about the Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope in it. Baptists and charismatics are not Traditional Catholics and often do not see that authority as being very important.

We Catholics will not be divided. The anger you see is the righteous anger of a Catholic who is angry about sneak-attacks being supported by CAF.

 

[tweetymom]

It is not about you or about Baptists, tweetymom, so why do you want to characterize this very important issue for Catholics as one of emotion? We Catholics have a Church to defend and we have the right to defend it against sneak attacks and lies. You don’t understand trhe issues because you are not a Traditional Catholic. There is plenty of room in the Catholic church for many levels and styles of devotion, but there is no room for deliberate lies and frankly it is not “nice” to expect those of us who see the lies to remain silent and allow innocent Catholics to be accused of a mortal sin when it is NOT a mortal sin and the Pope himself has addressed it.

You afre not a traditional Catholic, so naturally it does not matter to you if Traditional Catholics are divided up while you can stand by and watch the fight and accuse me of venom. That is venomous. Why is a Baptist/Catholic ecumenist here, if not to promote the Protestantization of our Catholic Church? That is why you want to see the names on polls. it is not about you, Tweetymom, but it is about the Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope in it. Baptists and charismatics are not Traditional Catholics and often do not see that authority as being very important.

We Catholics will not be divided. The anger you see is the righteous anger of a Catholic who is angry about sneak-attacks being supported by CAF.

Well sooooory I do not care about polls or who did what. I personally have not seen what you are talking about.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have noticed that this is a favorite tactic of left-wing Novus Ordo who are more concerned about promoting nonCatholic politics than about remaining faithful to Catholic doctrine, but it is also a favorite tactic of extremist Traditionalists who also include emotional “limust test” topics like the abortion & homosexuality issues in their views without regard to the actual complexity of these issues in real life as well as in actual Catholic history and doctrine.

I find it interesting that in a thread with a title like this the first group you single out are those who perfer the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Please do NOT vote in polls set up to reveal who voted.

Then you end with this.

So your title is a bit off.

I think that is all I am going to contribute to this thread.