fisheaters

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zacdecat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sirach2 said:
I believe Catholic Culture does a wonderful service for Catholics who need to know whether they are in safe territory when they visit sites that may distort the true faith. Whenever they give a “red - danger” rating, there is always authentic source material to back up their review. They don’t simply furnish a rating based on their own instinct, but on facts.

With regard to Fisheaters, the weakness where C.C. obtained their facts are from the actual Introduction on FE’s website. To be sure it was not obtained at an older date, I looked up the reference. Indeed, it is the actual present-day Introduction in full view for all who visit FE’s website. This is the wording, which in my opinion, certainly warrants the “red-danger” rating given to them by C.C. In fact, I would go much farther than merely calling this a “weakness.”

BTW, did anyone notice that Catholic Answers has the highest “green” rating, with absolutely no weaknesses?
Click to expand...
This isn’t fair.

You can’t hurl facts against facts. It can’t be okay to discriminate and bully one site and cite “facts” as the justification, and then produce the fact that the other site is producing facts as if it were a crime.

It is simply a fact that the Novus Ordo Missae (now the modified OF) mentioned in the Introduction to Fisheaters jetted, just for one example, 70%+ of the immemorially ancient orations of the Roman Missal, with (for another example) a consistent suppression (i.e. removal) of the word soul, all in keeping with the Consilium’s implementing a policy of eliminating anything they deemed was “negative theology.” These are also facts.

Therefore, if you are going to criticise someone for “facts”, then it goes both ways. Both need to admit the facts. I rather don’t like the fact that one site presumes to criticise another “based on facts,” with the crime being that the other site is… reporting facts! Should more recent converts like myself be warned that it is sinful to relate or produce the facts of history? Because apparently to the “culture” that the “laymen” at “Catholic Culture” are trying to “form,” it is somehow criminal to relate the truth about what factually happened during the sixties. Those old-school Anglicans who used to insult members who thought about converting to Catholicism by saying “don’t forget to leave your brain at the door” must be having a field day watching such going-ons.
 
And now it is down again. The last admin message about this said that a hardware problem at the server would be suspected if there was another crash. Since this seems to have happened, I’m guessing they are exploring that possibility now. I got the impression they thought FE could remain down for a while if this was the problem.

Anyone who normally posts there looking for somewhere else to post while it’s down might want to check out this new UK based Catholic forum: catholicpiazza.forumup.co.uk/index.php?mforum=catholicpiazza It is just starting out, so they might appreciate some traffic.
 
Fish Eaters says there is a blog but when I click on it, internet says it can’t find it. Is that always down, invite only or just down right now?
 
Diana_Catherine said:
Fish Eaters says there is a blog but when I click on it, internet says it can’t find it. Is that always down, invite only or just down right now?
Click to expand...
I’m guessing it’s temporarily down since one does not need an invitation and I was looking at it fairly recently.
 
It is down again as I write this. If it is a hardware server problem, which is the current theory, we can expect intermittent service.
 
Some of us have very real issues with many statements on fisheater’s website to the point where we question the reliablity of what the site contains and prefer not to patronize the site.

As an example, from their home page.

Find out in this section, and demand the ancient Mass, all the traditional Sacramental rites, and sound traditional Catholic teaching.

That anyone would dare to demand things from the Church, God’s instrument of salvation is a bit presumptuous, to think that anyone has the right to demand that the sacraments be given to them according to their own pleasure.

The fact that they call participating in the forums here at CAF “Intellectual mortification” aside, that under the section titled “Traditional Catholicism 101” they ascribe to and publish the so called “Traditional Catholic’s Motto”…

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

…is quite frankly, disgusting.

Such things as links to open letters from the SSPX leadership about why I am “Confused” about truth, quite frankly, put me more than just ill at ease.

These are all huge red flags for me, and speak to me not of trust in God and docility to the Church as Christs’ legitimate authority on earth but of arrogance to the point where I choose not to use fisheaters as a resource.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
Some of us have very real issues with many statements on fisheater’s website to the point where we question the reliablity of what the site contains and prefer not to patronize the site.

As an example, from their home page.

Find out in this section, and demand the ancient Mass, all the traditional Sacramental rites, and sound traditional Catholic teaching.

That anyone would dare to demand things from the Church, God’s instrument of salvation is a bit presumptuous, to think that anyone has the right to demand that the sacraments be given to them according to their own pleasure.

The fact that they call participating in the forums here at CAF “Intellectual mortification” aside, that under the section titled “Traditional Catholicism 101” they ascribe to and publish the so called “Traditional Catholic’s Motto”…

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

…is quite frankly, disgusting.

Such things as links to open letters from the SSPX leadership about why I am “Confused” about truth, quite frankly, put me more than just ill at ease.

These are all huge red flags for me, and speak to me not of trust in God and docility to the Church as Christs’ legitimate authority on earth but of arrogance to the point where I choose not to use fisheaters as a resource.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
TimothyH said:
Find out in this section, and demand the ancient Mass, all the traditional Sacramental rites, and sound traditional Catholic teaching.

That anyone would dare to demand things from the Church, God’s instrument of salvation is a bit presumptuous, to think that anyone has the right to demand that the sacraments be given to them according to their own pleasure.
Click to expand...
We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

…is quite frankly, disgusting.

-Tim-

Not sure what you find disgusting about that either. The point is that many Catholics today feel something is wrong with the traditional rites. Many here on CAF who are more informed would say no, the Church has always been the Church. Well if that’s true, then it does follow that the traditional rites are True, Valid and of God. So what that first group of Catholics, critical of the traditional rites intrinsicially, says, must be condemned.

The TLM and other traditional aspects of Catholicism are not, as some say, harmful because no one understood, or confusing, or in any other way bad. They were the Church’s universal practice in the West and are therefore good, and formed saints. If we are wrong to love them, then you (non-trads) were wrong to love them before (as your Catholic ancestors did), which you weren’t, so we aren’t.
 
Baelor said:
My response to both of you is then the same: I do not care how whether CC or any other source labels or what it deems acceptable or unacceptable; the usefulness of the site is in its lifting of potentially decision-affecting quotations. In other words, the review is irrelevant, and “how I view things” is also irrelevant. What is relevant is what the site says. There is bias insofar as which selections are biased, but their presence is factual (if hyperlinked, etc.).
Click to expand...
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds to me like you are defending CC as a valuable resource because they include quotes in their reviews even though, as you have previously admitted, they are “wrong in [their] analysis.” It seems you are indifferent to the misleading and in some cases simply fictitious claims included in the reviews so long as there are quotes on the page. Using this reasoning Dan Brown’s novels would be valid resources about the Catholic Church because they include one or two historical references. What if were a liar and chose to make negative assertions about your morality at this point? Would the presence of the above quote somehow legitimize my post? Would it be valid as a commentary on your person as you suggest CC’s reviews are regarding sites such as FishEaters? I hardly think so.

The fact is that CatholicCulture’s review of FishEaters makes assertions which are not true and as such are calumnious regarding the operators and participants at FE. They also misrepresent the Catholic faith itself, such as their claim that publications cannot include only pre-Vatican II references and still be faithful to the Church. In this way that review is also quite deleterious to any well-meaning readers who come across it, both for possibly twisting their understanding of what is and is not Catholic as well as potentially depriving them of access to good resources such as FishEaters. For that reason, in regard to fidelity, I give Catholic Culture a rating of Danger!
 
TimothyH said:
These are all huge red flags for me, and speak to me not of trust in God and docility to the Church as Christs’ legitimate authority on earth but of arrogance to the point where I choose not to use fisheaters as a resource.
Click to expand...
Thanks for letting us know about your choice of resources. The OP appears to have started this thread for those of us who do use FE as a resource, to keep track of the technical difficulties that are plaguing it at this time. Perhaps there is a more suitable place for your opinions.
 
TrueLight said:
Amen.

People are human. As I said before, the forum can get out of hand. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a wonderful site.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. I post on both this site & Fisheaters & all I see that is really different is the moderation. This site is moderated almost as if the posters are children. So & so gets mad at so & so for saying that they don’t like the Novus Ordo Mass, the other posts something back that infers his/her brain is in their posterior region & waa-laa, they are both banned.

At Fisheaters, the argument is usually allowed to run it’s course…either to the satisfaction of both posters or when it reaches a point where one just realizes that, though the other is wrong, it will serve no purpose to argue further & the thread is abandoned
 
TimothyH said:
Some of us have very real issues with many statements on fisheater’s website to the point where we question the reliablity of what the site contains and prefer not to patronize the site.

As an example, from their home page.

Find out in this section, and demand the ancient Mass, all the traditional Sacramental rites, and sound traditional Catholic teaching.

That anyone would dare to demand things from the Church, God’s instrument of salvation is a bit presumptuous, to think that anyone has the right to demand that the sacraments be given to them according to their own pleasure.

The fact that they call participating in the forums here at CAF “Intellectual mortification” aside, that under the section titled “Traditional Catholicism 101” they ascribe to and publish the so called “Traditional Catholic’s Motto”…

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

…is quite frankly, disgusting.

Such things as links to open letters from the SSPX leadership about why I am “Confused” about truth, quite frankly, put me more than just ill at ease.

These are all huge red flags for me, and speak to me not of trust in God and docility to the Church as Christs’ legitimate authority on earth but of arrogance to the point where I choose not to use fisheaters as a resource.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Have you ever given them the benefit of doubt?
They may be right, who knows.

Also, nice motto.
 
TimothyH said:
Some of us have very real issues with many statements on fisheater’s website to the point where we question the reliablity of what the site contains and prefer not to patronize the site.

As an example, from their home page.

Find out in this section, and demand the ancient Mass, all the traditional Sacramental rites, and sound traditional Catholic teaching.

That anyone would dare to demand things from the Church, God’s instrument of salvation is a bit presumptuous, to think that anyone has the right to demand that the sacraments be given to them according to their own pleasure.

The fact that they call participating in the forums here at CAF “Intellectual mortification” aside, that under the section titled “Traditional Catholicism 101” they ascribe to and publish the so called “Traditional Catholic’s Motto”…

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

…is quite frankly, disgusting.

Such things as links to open letters from the SSPX leadership about why I am “Confused” about truth, quite frankly, put me more than just ill at ease.

These are all huge red flags for me, and speak to me not of trust in God and docility to the Church as Christs’ legitimate authority on earth but of arrogance to the point where I choose not to use fisheaters as a resource.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Well said! Very well said indeed! 👍
 
Jane_of_Arc said:
Yes it is. I post on both this site & Fisheaters & all I see that is really different is the moderation. This site is moderated almost as if the posters are children. So & so gets mad at so & so for saying that they don’t like the Novus Ordo Mass, the other posts something back that infers his/her brain is in their posterior region & waa-laa, they are both banned.

At Fisheaters, the argument is usually allowed to run it’s course…either to the satisfaction of both posters or when it reaches a point where one just realizes that, though the other is wrong, it will serve no purpose to argue further & the thread is abandoned
Click to expand...
If you have a problem with CAF, why do you keep on posting here? If you want to post on a forum where you have others happily agreeing with your views which some of us find less than Caholic/Christian then you have your Fisheaters and others.

The moderators here want the dissemination of correct Catholic doctrine. Insulting people and being personal is actually being childish so you have got it the wrong way around.
 
severus68 said:
If you have a problem with CAF, why do you keep on posting here? If you want to post on a forum where you have others happily agreeing with your views which some of us find less than Caholic/Christian then you have your Fisheaters and others.

The moderators here want the dissemination of correct Catholic doctrine. Insulting people and being personal is actually being childish so you have got it the wrong way around.
Click to expand...
You see? This is the perfect example.

He said something and you get mad without any real reason. Now he may get banned or something.
 
FE is still down 😦

For me (me, myself, and I), FE is a resource. It helps me on the meta data level to maybe get a clue what is really happening in the Catholic (et al) mental pulse. Sometimes it takes several different sites, blogs, and articles to get a real feel of what somebody is talking about or what they are really asking/telling or where a thought or line of thinking originated and why.

Like with anything else a bit of caution is always advisable. Check the facts, be aware of biases (your’s and their’s), and use best judgement that is guarded by safe practices.
 
Wisely said:
40.png
severus68:
If you have a problem with CAF, why do you keep on posting here? If you want to post on a forum where you have others happily agreeing with your views which some of us find less than Caholic/Christian then you have your Fisheaters and others.

The moderators here want the dissemination of correct Catholic doctrine. Insulting people and being personal is actually being childish so you have got it the wrong way around.
Click to expand...
You see? This is the perfect example.

He said something and you get mad without any real reason. Now he may get banned or something.
Click to expand...
Didn’t see where severus68 got mad. All severus68 did – was respond to someone who is not quite “happy” with the moderating style and this site.
 
Walking_Home said:
Didn’t see where severus68 got mad. All severus68 did – was respond to someone who is not quite “happy” with the moderating style and this site.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, but what else did you notice? I noticed that a person posted a general comment on the differences between two web-sites, and additionally that they were challenged with statements such as “why do you keep on posting here?” or “If you want to post on a forum where you have others happily agreeing with your views which some of us find less than Caholic/Christian . . .” I also saw these followed up with the very interesting: “Insulting people and being personal is actually being childish so you have got it the wrong way around.” One might ask just who was being personal in this exchange, and thereby acting like a child? Was it the person who compared two forum styles without suggesting any particular individuals, or the person who actually said that their views were " . . . less than Catholic/Christian"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top