A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
Oh! The one whose owner believes the SSPX is run by Jews! I stumbled upon it years ago and couldn’t get past the About page in which he laments the Society’s “perfidy”.
- Status
A
angel12
Guest
Good grief. Just when you think you’ve heard the silliest conspiracy theories . . .
S
Sirach2
Guest
Whoa, Christine Niles is associated with Church Militant and Michael Voris.
D
DarkLight
Guest
Oh goodness if you think the modesty discussions on here are bad! I had people who literally could not comprehend that there are professional dress expectations for women and a professional woman might have a reason other than her vanity for not wanting to wear floor-length gingham and no makeup or jewelry.
Still, there were some interesting folk there, but you did have to have a thick skin and a strong stomach.
Y
yankeesouth
Guest
Yes for example, we see how liberals use the ‘seamless garment’ ideology as political manipulation.
D
dochawk
Guest
. . . must . . . resist . . . temptation . . .
something is calling me to go and post, “Gingham is HOT!”
:crazy_face:
G
gracepoole
Guest
Yes, she is now.gracepoole:
Whoa, Christine Niles is associated with Church Militant and Michael Voris.
And I agree:
C
Canvas
Guest
I remember reading a truly fascinating article there about the ancient Catholic views on astrology , including quotes from Aquinas.
https://fisheaters.com/astrologybackground.html
D
DarkLight
Guest
Summary
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Shameless, I tell you.
In all seriousness, though, I remember also some interesting thoughts about head coverings and why the mantilla came to be the thing that stands for head covering in the US. There were some good people there, but there were also some very aggressive traditionalist types.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Shameless, I tell you.
In all seriousness, though, I remember also some interesting thoughts about head coverings and why the mantilla came to be the thing that stands for head covering in the US. There were some good people there, but there were also some very aggressive traditionalist types.
Last edited:
N
nightshade
Guest
Pouring over the being Catholic articles really helped me along in my conversion from former atheism to Catholicism.
Y
yankeesouth
Guest
Yes she and Church Militant are doing good work on the priest abuse crisis.
A
adgloriam
Guest
@dochawk
(Analogous to how the catechism condemns Irony as mercilessly caricaturing others.)
-The above is an invariant sociological equation and you’d care to notice how it holds over your (or anyone’s) written production. - over the remarks we hold ourselves.
You probably haven’t noticed that what you call “Trad” doesn’t exist outside the US. It’s a phenomenon almost exclusive to your society that laity pose as polarizing around a liturgical difference - that is what’s to be noticed: when the social agents you call “Trads” comment on something they are actually being “themselves” and the object they comment on serves only as an irrelevant motif for the underlying motives that motivate them (both the latter having no connection whatsoever to tradition or liturgy).
So, you can reverse the analyses and apply it to whoever “criticizes” the “critics” and there you’ll notice they aren’t different at all in the essence of their conduct and cognition - they share the exact same vice: judgment of taste.
QED @dochawk
Hey @AlbertDerGrosse did you know “criticism” is a sin?? Objectively so. Criticism poses as comprehensiveness when indeed it’s a detraction and the antonymous of what comprehensiveness is = a social critique on the judgment on taste.AlbertDerGrosse:
(…)other than her vanity (…)
(Analogous to how the catechism condemns Irony as mercilessly caricaturing others.)
-The above is an invariant sociological equation and you’d care to notice how it holds over your (or anyone’s) written production. - over the remarks we hold ourselves.
You probably haven’t noticed that what you call “Trad” doesn’t exist outside the US. It’s a phenomenon almost exclusive to your society that laity pose as polarizing around a liturgical difference - that is what’s to be noticed: when the social agents you call “Trads” comment on something they are actually being “themselves” and the object they comment on serves only as an irrelevant motif for the underlying motives that motivate them (both the latter having no connection whatsoever to tradition or liturgy).
So, you can reverse the analyses and apply it to whoever “criticizes” the “critics” and there you’ll notice they aren’t different at all in the essence of their conduct and cognition - they share the exact same vice: judgment of taste.
QED @dochawk
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
I won’t say whether I agree or disagree with the quoted statement; I will only observe that, no matter what object or even idea anyone can come up with, someone somewhere is turned on by it.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I remember reading an article on that site which suggested that the only time a woman can leave her childhood home is to get married. It suggested against a woman leaving her parents and living independently on her own.
It reminded me too much of the view of women as perpetual minors and never a full adult, under the authority of her father and then her husband.
I avoided that site ever since.
It reminded me too much of the view of women as perpetual minors and never a full adult, under the authority of her father and then her husband.
I avoided that site ever since.
Last edited:
M
Mi_Rose
Guest
I remember one in which a very smart woman was told that she was an exception to the rule that men were smarter than women so she was allowed to go to college. Ah good times.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I don’t want to go into detail because it would feel like gossip, but I agree the articles on stuff like astrology and Rogation Days are very interesting and good. The forums however were like Peyton Place on the day I happened to visit. I was just not comfortable with the type or level of personal interacting and getting together that seemed to be going on, especially on a Catholic forum.
D
DisorientingSneeze
Guest
Thank you for pointing that out. It had not occurred to me, but I believe you.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Interesting. I didn’t spend much time there either but some time ago , ages really, I was looking up information on a few specific people who supported women’s ordination. One link led me to a thread there. I perused the forums and stumbled upon a thread with a picture of a lovely young girl in profile, wearing a chapel veil and holding a missal. And the men/boys on the thread salivating about it. The comments were a surprise and a complete turn off. I didn’t find a female presence and thought it was a forum for men only. Color me surprised to discover much later out that a woman headed up the forum. Unfortunately, I got a very good idea how even “devout” men think about girls/women. Her prayerful posture did not inspire the same. 
A
adgloriam
Guest
Fortunately, the blanket term “devout” here applies to “chaste” to “temperance” but also to “wisdom” by way of “experience”. Overall to “control of the appetites” among which “attraction” is written in the deep-most of our nature and psyche. The exact behavior you describe is seen on any internet forum (E.g. language exchange sites) and invariably the most aesthetic profile pics garner the most attention (number of posted interaction attempts) by tendency of first reaction (as if “a pull”).
And, I actually do suppose, the single and the chaste and the inexperienced will have a cumulative tendency (put together with the customary reduced social life habitually correlated to internet usage) to be hardest hit by the effects of their attraction.
Inversely, the apt social players (at any “game”) whilst better maintaining composure and cool are no less suspect (and will normally be patient, thus devoid of precipitations or obvious off-putting “turn-offs” - as you have put them.)
But this is only by way of first approximation, because when I arrived at CAF I was nearing the “top of my game” regarding the masculine world which held ever less and less surprises - if any at all. Inversely, the LGBT members were the ones that surprised me the most - what nothing could have prepared me for, was the extreme politicization and political charged nature of all LGBT issues in contemporary US society. And that is also why there’s a special place in my heart for all the SSA CAF’ers I met here.
One CAF’er in particular who is an LGBT advocate, touched my intellect in unprecedented ways altering my entire perception of LGBT persons - to her I owe a debt of gratitude for the genuine disposition of lasting, honest, unrestrained deep-seated charity she helped me find towards our LGBT brethren.
And here it becomes really interesting, were it not for the “most abstract” form of attraction that is perhaps attraction for a “feminine text” (simply because it is a text and that text is feminine) I would have lacked the proper motivation to engage by way of emotion on LGBT issues. Because all those issue to me fell short, since they were devoid of the spring-board that is attraction that God in His wisdom inscribed in our natures.
-Perhaps Saint Benedict said it best:“the only criteria is that of the heart.”
The factor of attraction helped me make by best CAF friend both being single, catholic and of opposite genders we share a lot. A God sent friend indeed.
The most fulfilling relationships I developed here were motivated by an “attraction of the reason” that is “full of heart”. It was with middle-aged to elderly ladies, experienced and wise Catholics who by their catholic solicitude gave me a bit of their attention and, a genuine wise kind word. The interactions and those persons are what I have come to treasure the most, for the much they gave me - because for some reason I had fallen into a deficit of having Sisters, in Christ.
Last edited:
A
adgloriam
Guest
It would take some elaboration to expound on properly, and I do believe the “Trad” polemics (as they tend to go in the US today) would benefit from the viewer taking an outsider perspective of the society - refusing any involvement at the outset allows a clearer view of the social phenomeon.adgloriam:
Thank you for pointing that out. It had not occurred to me, but I believe you.
[It’s reminiscent of bi-polarized partitioning where people’s definition of self “who they are” is made via “what they like” - having fallen into a duality of “stereotype/label” (that is mostly artificial-but functionally handy, being simple - defining two sides of an imaginary barrier gives an easy and cheap referential, allowing for endless elaboration on it) hindering view of the whole, a form of shallow belonging ensues - and of differentiation. Such differentiation being ubiquitous in the discourse, you’d have to take the artificial differentiation out to look solely at the bare discourse itself.]
- Status