fisheaters

[PatrickSanDiego]

Yeah, but I pray that someday they’ll be faithful to the Magesterium.

You know, I’ve never even visited their forums. I have just looked at their lists of Catholic traditions. I saw something. I think it was in the category of genuflecting. It was something that I saw of as not consistent with what I grew up with, or I have ever seen in any Church. From that point on, I didn’t look at them as a pure source. So, I guess without consciously realizing it, I saw them as not wholly in line with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Inaccuracies cannot be tolerated.

 

[TrueLight]

You know, I’ve never even visited their forums. I have just looked at their lists of Catholic traditions. I saw something. I think it was in the category of genuflecting. It was something that I saw of as not consistent with what I grew up with, or I have ever seen in any Church. From that point on, I didn’t look at them as a pure source. So, I guess without consciously realizing it, I saw them as not wholly in line with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Inaccuracies cannot be tolerated.

So a genuflection that you thought was wrong convinced you that they are not in line with the magisterium? Amazing.

 

[Walking_Home]

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"?

---

And saying this site gets moderated – almost like the posters were children — is not to be taken negatively. That statement alone --makes a negative jab at the moderator of this forum. So please – don’t call the kettle black.

 

[severus68]

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.

With a name like ‘Joan’, I think its a she. Why should she be banned if she is in the right? I did not report her. I do not however want CAF to be overwhelmed by ultra trads who want to push their own agendas.

BTW, I am not mad, just fed up with how what some Catholics say reflect so badly on the Church and keep people away.

 

[cothrige]

---

And saying this site gets moderated – almost like the posters were children — is not to be taken negatively. That statement alone --makes a negative jab at the moderator of this forum. So please – don’t call the kettle black.

Now, come on, that is disingenuous. That poster illustrated some contrasts of the moderation styles at each respective fora, and in so doing leveled a very basic and general criticism of the philosophy of CAF. There was no suggestion that this or that moderator was any particular thing. Not even a hint, and you know it full well. And in response you rant against making things personal only to go on and suggest that the person’s beliefs are less than Christian? I mean, really? Don’t get personal, it is childish. But you are less than Christian. And you want to talk about kettles?

 

[cothrige]

You know, I’ve never even visited their forums. I have just looked at their lists of Catholic traditions. I saw something. I think it was in the category of genuflecting. It was something that I saw of as not consistent with what I grew up with, or I have ever seen in any Church. From that point on, I didn’t look at them as a pure source. So, I guess without consciously realizing it, I saw them as not wholly in line with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Inaccuracies cannot be tolerated.

You forgot to enclose this in sarc tags or something. People are going to think you are serious if you aren’t careful.

 

[Walking_Home]

Now, come on, that is disingenuous. That poster illustrated some contrasts of the moderation styles at each respective fora, and in so doing leveled a very basic and general criticism of the philosophy of CAF. There was no suggestion that this or that moderator was any particular thing. Not even a hint, and you know it full well. **And in response you rant **against making things personal only to go on and suggest that the person’s beliefs are less than Christian? I mean, really? Don’t get personal, it is childish. But you are less than Christian. And you want to talk about kettles?

---

Just picked up on what was said – don’t believe that was --“disingenuous”. And to the rest of your post – below are my prior two posts - I’ve made in this thread. Don’t see the ranting – and whatever else you say.

Walking_Home:

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:

And saying this site gets moderated – almost like the posters were children — is not to be taken negatively. That statement alone --makes a negative jab at the moderator of this forum. So please – don’t call the kettle black.

 

[cothrige]

---

Just picked up on what was said – don’t believe that was --“disingenuous”. And to the rest of your post – below are my prior two posts - I’ve made in this thread. Don’t see the ranting – and whatever else you say.

I am terribly sorry about that. I am afraid I conflated your post with another person’s earlier comment having looked at the name on the wrong post. No excuse for that error. And, no, I definitely agree, yours contained no rants of any sort. I sincerely apologize for having misstated that in your regard. I will be more careful.

 

[Walking_Home]

I am terribly sorry about that. I am afraid I conflated your post with another person’s earlier comment having looked at the name on the wrong post. No excuse for that error. And, no, I definitely agree, yours contained no rants of any sort.** I sincerely apologize for having misstated that in your regard. I will be more careful.**

---

No problem.

Now – back to the OP. Last check – Fisheaters still down.

 

[PatrickSanDiego]

So a genuflection that you thought was wrong convinced you that they are not in line with the magisterium? Amazing.

Not really amazing, just common sense. the whole of genuflection is not that complex, they should at least get that right. There’s more than a few errors on that site. If one notices errors, their credibility index decreases. You have to agree with that. And, please refrain from using semantics asked in rhetorical manner, it’s hostile, argumentive, and is usually done in desperation. …“TrueLight” …amazing.

 

[PA650]

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.

It’s either the server itself or somebody just doesn’t like the website.

 

[Spooky7272]

I think it was in the category of genuflecting. It was something that I saw of as not consistent with what I grew up with, or I have ever seen in any Church.

If you saw a mistake or error, did it occur to you to point it out to the author or is it easier to just sniff and act all superior? The main site was written by ONE person. She’s done a heck of a job but she’s human. Mistakes can happen.

As for the person who posted something about how it’s “disgusting” to demand something from the Church: how is it disgusting to demand our Catholic Identity? Pope Benedict even put in Sumorum Pontifcum that the faithful have the right to demand the 1962 Missal. The faithful have a right to correct, and valid Sacraments. If you don’t believe me, ask Father Z.
“Save the Liturgy, Save the World”

 

[TrueLight]

And, please refrain from using semantics asked in rhetorical manner, it’s hostile, argumentive, and is usually done in desperation. …“TrueLight” …amazing.

I guess you told me! You sure put me in my place!

Who’s being rude and hostile?

In any case, I don’t agree with you. Like I said, their forum has some issues, but their articles are quite good including the ones on traditional practices. They’re extremely well researched.
Once someone’s made up their mind about something, it’s hard for them to see anything else.

 

[Exsilivm]

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 …ascribe to and publish the so called “Traditional Catholic’s Motto”…

…is quite frankly, disgusting.

FE are correct that Christians may demand sound doctrine from their pastors. Being a pastor or a bishop does not mean that the doctrine he teaches, or the life he lives, is sound or proper to his station. Liberation theology is one example of poor doctrine that has, in places, been falsely preached as genuine Christian doctrine.

With respect to the sacraments, when people demand something that was mandatory, it seems difficult to claim that they demand something “according to their own pleasure.” They demand something that was the Church’s pleasure at an earlier time. If one takes the position that Church doctrine never changes, and that the form of the sacraments follows doctrine, then to change the sacraments acknowledges a change in doctrine.

This is why the Orthodox Churches do not change the sacraments in the way that the Catholic Church changes them. Naturally, one may quarrel over whether FEs participants are doctrinally correct, but to say that FE’s position is based on mere preference does not do justice to avoids the issues that appear on their site.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

 ...their forum has some issues, but their articles are quite good including the ones on traditional practices. They're extremely well researched.

Once someone’s made up their mind about something, it’s hard for them to see anything else.

I agree. I have found that works for me. If I form an opinion of something or somewhere without seeing the whole thing I can form a wrong opinion.

I think the site has great information, those on the discussion forum can go on a bit but it is good and informative.

 

[cothrige]

Not really amazing, just common sense. the whole of genuflection is not that complex, they should at least get that right. There’s more than a few errors on that site.

Would you perhaps be willing to share what error you found in regard to genuflexion? You have made me quite curious.

 

[TimothyH]

FE are correct that Christians may demand sound doctrine from their pastors. Being a pastor or a bishop does not mean that the doctrine he teaches, or the life he lives, is sound or proper to his station. Liberation theology is one example of poor doctrine that has, in places, been falsely preached as genuine Christian doctrine.

With respect to the sacraments, when people demand something that was mandatory, it seems difficult to claim that they demand something “according to their own pleasure.” They demand something that was the Church’s pleasure at an earlier time. If one takes the position that Church doctrine never changes, and that the form of the sacraments follows doctrine, then to change the sacraments acknowledges a change in doctrine.

This is why the Orthodox Churches do not change the sacraments in the way that the Catholic Church changes them. Naturally, one may quarrel over whether FEs participants are doctrinally correct, but to say that FE’s position is based on mere preference does not do justice to avoids the issues that appear on their site.

The Catholic Church has not changed sacraments.

Form does follow doctrine but Church architecture is not part of proper form, nor is the language used or what the priest wears or the time of day which the sacrament is celebrated.

-Tim-

 

[newyorkcatholic]

The Catholic Church has not changed sacraments.

Form does follow doctrine but Church architecture is not part of proper form, nor is the language used or what the priest wears or the time of day which the sacrament is celebrated.

-Tim-

Why did you leave out the changes in the texts themselves? That’s the most important.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

Is it just me or are they still down?

 

[floresco]

Is it just me or are they still down?

Still down. There is a fisheaters page on Facebook that Vox uses to give updates on the problem but she has not posted there since Saturday.

Edit: She posted yesterday. I forgot to refresh.