FishEaters.com

[StGerardMajella]

You are grossly misinterpreting and twisting my words. First, Fisheaters is the web site that is separatist from the main Church, even if you claim otherwise. The content of your web site speaks for itself.

I have read your forums, and I have read your content at your web site. It is pure filth, and Catholic Answers at least has moderation of the content to a much, much greater degree.

You can claim otherwise, but the web site is public domain, open to inspection by any and all.

In regards to your claims of heresy, give me a break. Fisheaters is the only heresy - It is racist, separatist, schismatic, unmoderated garbage by a tiny minority of Catholics that ardently claim that they know everything authoritative about the Catholic Church.

I have seen posts in your discussion forums trashing Pope John Paul II’s ecumenical efforts, posts that trash Israel, posts that trash all ecumenical efforts made by Pope Benedict, posts that trash the Novus Ordo, essays that you post calling Vatican 2 “Ecclesiastical Woodstock”.

Fisheaters is the web site that promotes the idea that Vatican 2 brought “new” Catholic teachings, not me. Fisheaters is separatist, and promotes a warped and strained version of Catholicism that only exists in the minds of its owners and misguided adherents.

I never once stated that I “see 2 different churches”. Give it up!

 

[LaRoza]

Examples of differences:

Tridentine Mass vs. Novus Ordo

Both are valid rites in the Church today.

Pre-Vatican II vs. Vatican II

Vatican II did not change any beliefs of the Church. The site contains post VII developments.

Non-Ecumenical vs. Ecumenical

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Eucharist at the rail vs. Eucharist in the hand, etc.

It should be on the tongue. How it gets there really doesn’t matter as long as it doesn’t cause any problems.

Fisheaters and traditional Catholics advocate for a very tiny minority of the population of Catholics, yet they are quite vocal (as you can see by the attacks coming out of the woodwork to defend this radical web site).

Er, I’ve been a member of this site for a while as have others. The Church is Tradition. That is what it is. If you deny the sacred traditons of the Church, you are denying the Church.

There is only Catholic and not-Catholic.

We can agree to disagree - The web site is very dangerous for those individuals that don’t understand the agenda of the owners - a definite slant and bias against Vatican II and the modern Catholic Church.

“modern”. You seem to think there are two Churches or at least some sort of change in the Church. There isn’t.

(Anyone with a little bit of computer knowledge can create a “Catholic” web site discussion forum. That doesn’t mean that they know what they are talking about, or that they have any authority to speak for Catholicism in general.)

And anyone can post on a forum…

 

[LaRoza]

You are grossly misinterpreting and twisting my words. First, Fisheaters is the web site that is separatist from the main Church, even if you claim otherwise. The content of your web site speaks for itself.

“main Church”?

I have read your forums, and I have read your content at your web site. It is pure filth, and Catholic Answers at least has moderation of the content to a much, much greater degree.

Show me the Filth: fisheaters.com/beingcatholic.html

I have seen posts in your discussion forums trashing Pope John Paul II’s ecumenical efforts, posts that trash Israel, posts that trash all ecumenical efforts made by Pope Benedict, etc.

I’ve also seen posts that defend Pope John Paul II. Israel is a political issue, so I don’t see why you see that as significant.

Fisheaters is the web site that promotes the idea that Vatican 2 brought “new” Catholic teachings, not me.

Then why do you constantly refer to “modern”, “main” and “today” when describing the Church?

I never once stated that I “see 2 different churches”. Give it up!

You speak as if you do.

 

[LaRoza]

Eh, I reported StGerardMajella’s posts for calumny, heresy, etc. to the moderators. I’m sure Karl doesn’t want his forum filled with this stuff.

I wish such people did not use the name of Saints for their forum IDs.

I figured I’d defend a few things I happen to see. I was always told never to argue with idiots, because I may be doing the same thing.

 

[StGerardMajella]

It’s a dangerous web site, because it takes a vehement stance against Vatican II. I am not the one that sees two separate Churches - Fisheaters does.

Just read the content - Read the discussion forums - It’s their world view.

And LaRoza, give me a break. Engage.

Filth? Everywhere. Let’s see. How about their link to an Essay calling Vatican II “Ecclesiastical Woodstock”? Or bashing RCIA on their cover page? How about the constant Jew bashing? Read the web site for yourself. Read the forums.

It in no way compares to Catholic Answers, which is much more professional, much more moderated, and a much better site overall.

 

[LaRoza]

It’s a dangerous web site, because it takes a vehement stance against Vatican II. I am not the one that sees two separate Churches - Fisheaters does.

Just read the content - Read the discussion forums - It’s their world view.

Why is VII so important? It did not introduce any new dogmas and it couldn’t have changed any dogmas. It introduced new rubrics and such, but did not forbid the use of the other ones.

So, without VII, where would we be? Would we truly lack anything? It is possible to live exactly as the Church did before VII without breaking any rules of the Church, as long as one doesn’t deny the authority of the Church and the council (which, as plainly stated, the site owners do not deny them).

 

[LaRoza]

Filth? Everywhere. Let’s see. How about their link to an Essay calling Vatican II “Ecclesiastical Woodstock”? Or bashing RCIA on their cover page? How about the constant Jew bashing? Read the web site for yourself. Read the forums.

That is a small amount of content there. First, a link to an essay is not necessarily showing agreement with the essay. Also, the title of the essay says little. From what I’ve heard about RCIA, it seems to have a large capacity for errors, although the concept itself does not error.

Jews? Jews are followers of another religion. If you believe in the Church’s teachings, it is logical to see them as being in error. The people on the site also believe every other religion to be false as well.

So you don’t like the content of the threads on the forum, so what? I ignore threads I do not find interesting either. I also don’t post on threads about beer, smoking and childbirth.

Stop telling me to read the forums. I’m the most prolific poster there at the moment I think

It in no way compares to Catholic Answers, which is much more professional, much more moderated, and a much better site overall.

Then why do you care about FE? Does it threaten you in some way? I don’t post things about forums that I don’t like on other forums.

Personally, I don’t like this forum for technical reasons. I find FE’s forum to be more “professional” (I say that because I helped in deciding the software for it…) and the main site to have very useful information. When I want information about Catholic teachings and devotions, I go to fisheaters.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Don’t ask me - Ask Fisheaters why Vatican II is so important.

Post the topic in their discussion group, and I am sure you will get an earful about how “awful” Vatican II was.

(Oh, but don’t blame that on the owners of Fisheaters. After all, it’s in the “Discussion Group” portion of their web site and they don’t take any responsibility for what is posted there. Just to make sure we have that clarification, okay?)

 

[FEQuis]

You are grossly misinterpreting and twisting my words.

I am doing no such thing. I am quoting exactly what you say then answering to it.

First, Fisheaters is the web site that is separatist from the main Church, even if you claim otherwise. The content of your web site speaks for itself.

We are “separatist from the main Church”? How? Have we been excommunicated by our Ordinary or the Holy See? Nope. Are we sedevacantists? Nope. Do we believe Vatican 2 was a valid ecumenical council? Yep.

So, are you usurping the rightful authority of the Bishops and the Pope to determine who is a member of the Church?

I have read your forums, and I have read your content at your web site. It is pure filth, and Catholic Answers at least has moderation of the content to a much, much greater degree.

Your presence here seems to show otherwise. But, be that as it may, since most of the website contains quotes of Catholic teaching, how to bake “Resurrection Cookies” and other “filth” I’d hate to hear what you would think of a Muslim website.

BTW, you can stop bootlicking CA already. We know you wouldn’t dare say a word against them even if it means you need to engage in a double-standard.

You can claim otherwise, but the web site is public domain, open to inspection by any and all.

Exactly! I hope everyone who reads this nonsense looks for themselves and finds out you are lying and engaging in calumny. In fact, I have asked you to show my where those statements were made by myself or Vox or are on the main website. You haven’t because you can’t. You pick some posts out of the forum that look damning, with no regard to the fact that many of the people who have posted that stuff have been banned, and you claim that’s what FE is about.

Every forum has some nutty posts. Every forum has some nutty posters. CA does, FE does. But you are being disingenuous by slamming all of FE for a few posts especially when every other Catholic forum, blog, etc., has the same problem. There are over 300K posts there; the screwy ones, and they do exist, are in the vast minority.

In regards to your claims of heresy, give me a break. Fisheaters is the only heresy - It is racist, separatist, schismatic, unmoderated garbage by a tiny minority of Catholics that ardently claim that they know everything authoritative about the Catholic Church.

It’s so sad that you don’t even realize you have spouted heresy. That you call people with a lawful affection and charism for traditional practices, liturgies, etc. “schismatic”. I can’t say that I haven’t met people like you before. I’ll pray for you to obtain the Catholic charity both JP2 and B16 called for when talking about traditional Catholic practices and the 1962 Missal.

I have seen posts in your discussion forums trashing Pope John Paul II’s ecumenical efforts,

So? We’re not allowed to say “I think the Pope made a mistake doing this”?

posts that trash Israel

Er, i didn’t know liking Israel was part of Catholic doctrine… BTW, there are posts there that trash the US, France, Germany, etc. as well. Funny you should concentrate on posts about one country…

posts that trash all ecumenical efforts made by Pope Benedict,

And posts that support him as well. But it’s convenient to ignore those, right?

posts that trash the Novus Ordo,

You say trash, I say critique, and most of the critiques are about unlawful abuses of the Rubrics approved by Rome.

essays that you post calling Vatican 2 “Ecclesiastical Woodstock”.

OK, now I will straight out call you a liar. A forum member posted an essay that stated that for people to comment on, NOT ME. Said forum member was eventually banned, though, surprisingly, he’s a member in good standing here on CA.

Fisheaters is the web site that promotes the idea that Vatican 2 brought “new” Catholic teachings, not me.

No, that’s not true. Quote it and show me where. We have where you said it right here on this thread.

Fisheaters is separatist, and promotes a warped and strained version of Catholicism that only exists in the minds of its owners and misguided adherents.

I never once stated that I “see 2 different churches”. Give it up!

it’s not heresy pointing out the differences … between traditional Catholicism … and the modern day post Vatican II Catholic Church

I happy letting everyone reading this decide based on your own words. Are you?

 

[LaRoza]

Don’t ask me - Ask Fisheaters why Vatican II is so important.

Post the topic in their discussion group, and I am sure you will get an earful about how “awful” Vatican II was.

Then why do you see people “denying” VII as being so bad?

Can you say why Vatican II was good?

(Oh, but don’t blame that on the owners of Fisheaters. After all, it’s in the “Discussion Group” portion of their web site and they don’t take any responsibility for what is posted there. Just to make sure we have that clarification, okay?)

I don’t get what you are saying. You cite one essay that they didn’t write, some posters on their forum, and Vatican II which you don’t seem to think is important. How does that justify all this stuff you are saying? You are being very uncharitable, and I suggest you ask Quis to forgive you and go your own way. If you don’t want to use their forum, then don’t use it.

 

[FEQuis]

It’s a dangerous web site, because it takes a vehement stance against Vatican II. I am not the one that sees two separate Churches - Fisheaters does.

Again, we have your words. Show me where FE says there are two separate Churches.

Just read the content - Read the discussion forums - It’s their world view.

Yes, please read it and see for yourselves this man is a guy with an agenda and will lie to promote it.

Filth? Everywhere. Let’s see. How about their link to an Essay calling Vatican II “Ecclesiastical Woodstock”? Or bashing RCIA on their cover page? How about the constant Jew bashing? Read the web site for yourself. Read the forums.

Yes, please read it.

It in no way compares to Catholic Answers, which is much more professional, much more moderated, and a much better site overall.

If you want to say CA is better, that’s fine. First, you could be right! Second, I pay for FE out of my pocket - I don’t have the budget that Karl does.

But having an opinion that one site is better than the other is much different than the vicious lies, calumnies, rhetoric, and heretical statements you have been engaging in.

 

[FEQuis]

(Oh, but don’t blame that on the owners of Fisheaters. After all, it’s in the “Discussion Group” portion of their web site and they don’t take any responsibility for what is posted there. Just to make sure we have that clarification, okay?)

OK, I’m taking everything you said here and applying it to Karl Keating. I’m sure he’ll be thrilled.

 

[CTA1967]

I really don’t see how the Fisheaters forum is any worse than CAF. Looking through this, it seems that most of the frequent posters even defend the NO mass: catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/board,33.0.html

 

[LaRoza]

I really don’t see how the Fisheaters forum is any worse than CAF. Looking through this, it seems that most of the frequent posters even defend the NO mass: catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3420786.0.html

Also keep in mind that all members of the site are not Catholic. It is quite a diverse forum.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Try looking at Fisheaters.com cover page, and click on the “Go” button under the header, “For Catholics”.

Look under the section called Essays, and find the article “Vatican II and The Spirit of Woodstock”:

fisheaters.com/forcatholics.html

Here is the Essay directly linked from your web site:

remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-woodstock.htm

Second header in the article states, “Vatican II, An Ecclesiastical Woodstock”.

Now this is NOT in a discussion forum, this is directly on your web site under the content posted by the owner.

Who are you calling a liar again? You crack me up. If you weren’t so twisted in the head, it might be funny. Do you want more examples, or does this filth suffice?

How about the article, “Ecumenism as a Virus”?

 

[LaRoza]

Try looking at Fisheaters.com cover page, and click on the “Go” button under the header, “For Catholics”.

Look under the section called Essays, and find the article “Vatican II and The Spirit of Woodstock”:

fisheaters.com/forcatholics.html

Here is the Essay directly linked from your web site:

remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-woodstock.htm

Second header in the article states, “Vatican II, An Ecclesiastical Woodstock”.

Now this is NOT in a discussion forum, this is directly on your web site under the content posted by the owner.

Who are you calling a liar again? You crack me up. If you weren’t so twisted in the head, it might be funny. Do you want more examples, or does this filth suffice?

Ok, you showed it is linked to by the forum. You are only referencing the title of the article. What about its content?

This is the only article which you have used to justify calling the entire site filth you know, so yes, I’d like more examples.

EDIT: I read through the article. I don’t see a reason for your statements by reading that article, even if the article were written by the site’s owners. It does not preach against the Faith and it does not deny VII. It seems that just because you don’t agree with someone’s opinion on a matter that you say all these things. What is so bad about that article?

 

[FEQuis]

Try looking at Fisheaters.com cover page, and click on the “Go” button under the header, “For Catholics”.

Look under the section called Essays, and find the article “Vatican II and The Spirit of Woodstock”:

fisheaters.com/forcatholics.html

Here is the Essay directly linked from your web site:

remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-woodstock.htm

Second header in the article states, “Vatican II, An Ecclesiastical Woodstock”.

Now this is NOT in a discussion forum, this is directly on your web site under the content posted by the owner.

Who are you calling a liar again? You crack me up. If you weren’t so twisted in the head, it might be funny. Do you want more examples, or does this filth suffice?

Sure, it was linked to. It was also posted in the forum where the discussion was had around it. I didn’t write it. Vox didn’t write it. You claimed I or Vox called used that phrase, when we did no such thing.

I am not the one calling V2 an “Ecclesiastical Woodstock”, so spare me the drama.

This is the twisting of words and misrepresentation that you are engaging in. There is a link to that essay, it was posted on the forum for discussion, yet you imply Vox or I are calling V2 an “Ecclesiastical Woodstock”. That’s a lie.

Did you even read the article to understand how that phrase was being used? Or do you just like it because it will give people a knee-jerk reaction with its shock value?

 

[LaRoza]

Did you even read the article to understand how that phrase was being used? Or do you just like it because it will give people a knee-jerk reaction with its shock value?

I would say option 2.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I never criticized Catholic Answers - ever. Catholic Answers doesn’t adhere to a singular strain of Catholicism like Fisheaters, and at least has some decorum and decent moderators:

Examples of differences:

Tridentine Mass vs. Novus Ordo
Pre-Vatican II vs. Vatican II
Non-Ecumenical vs. Ecumenical
Eucharist at the rail vs. Eucharist in the hand, etc.

I’ve already given several examples - You just refuse to read and listen. I am not the one calling V2 an “Ecclesiastical Woodstock”, so spare me the drama.

Fisheaters and traditional Catholics advocate for a very tiny minority of the population of Catholics, yet they are quite vocal (as you can see by the attacks coming out of the woodwork to defend this radical web site).

It’s not heresy pointing out the differences in beliefs and practices between traditional Catholicism as practiced by the SSPX, etc. and the modern day post Vatican II Catholic Church (everyone else).

You get the idea. Fisheaters is still a fringe group on the outskirts of Catholicism, even though they wish they were mainstream. They are not.

We can agree to disagree - The web site is very dangerous for those individuals that don’t understand the agenda of the owners - a definite slant and bias against Vatican II and the modern Catholic Church.

(Anyone with a little bit of computer knowledge can create a “Catholic” web site discussion forum. That doesn’t mean that they know what they are talking about, or that they have any authority to speak for Catholicism in general.)

excellent point

 

[Adonis33]

I’m still interested in knowing what he means by: ***it’s not heresy pointing out the differences … between traditional Catholicism … and the modern day post Vatican II Catholic Church ***

---

I didn’t realize we had two different Catholic Churches.