B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
The flag-happy poster needs to chill.
- Status
J
JimmyDFG
Guest
Someone isn’t happy about the criticism towards Taylor Marshall
P
pnewton
Guest
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
It wasn’t merely a discipline issue that barred women from serving at the altar or becoming priests. There’s an entire theology behind the matter which he mentions in his latest video with John Henry Westin.
I know many people aren’t willing to sit through an entire video but he summarizes the issues within the first 10 min. It’s quite good.
J
JimG
Guest
I never heard of Taylor Marshall until I saw him mentioned an CAF.
As for Twitter, I sort of hope that all Twitter feeds would disappear, but that would be asking for a miracle.
As for Twitter, I sort of hope that all Twitter feeds would disappear, but that would be asking for a miracle.
J
JimmyDFG
Guest
LifeSiteNews is known for stirring the pot, so to speak. They’re not exactly friendly towards pope Francis. No wonder Taylor Marshall likes them and cites their articles. There very well could be an agenda behind their reporting.
“According to Snopes, LifeSiteNews is “a known purveyor of misleading information.” The Associated Press described the website as “ultraconservative.””
“According to Snopes, LifeSiteNews is “a known purveyor of misleading information.” The Associated Press described the website as “ultraconservative.””
A
Alphard
Guest
What makes you think snopes and associated press are unbiased?
The use of the term “ultraconservative” is a red flag about THEIR agenda. So i see it as an endorsment
The use of the term “ultraconservative” is a red flag about THEIR agenda. So i see it as an endorsment
P
pnewton
Guest
Those are two vastly different topics.
P
pnewton
Guest
I would say…
… lateral reading of other articles and common sense, at least when it comes to this particular point they make.
I note you defend them and consider being ultraconservative an endorsement. Do you truly not see this point? Sure, there are some bias in even the most equitable news outlet, but AP is about as pure neutral as one can get.
Last edited:
A
Alphard
Guest
What point they are trying to make? Why do they use the prefix “ultra”, aside from trying to make them look bad and crazy? What does it mean to be "ultraconservative? Is it even a bad thing?
By my experience and common sense whoever use these labels is not honest or impartial, and instead of discussing topic makes ad personas attacks
By my experience and common sense whoever use these labels is not honest or impartial, and instead of discussing topic makes ad personas attacks
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
I tend to gravitate toward something the world calls ultraconservative.
P
pnewton
Guest
The simple definition of “ultra” as a prefix is “very”, as in "to a greater degree. While all names are subject to definition, I think this can be seen to have at least some objective component. For example, if a site (or person) is known for not only opposing those to whom one’s group opposes, but also opposing those within one’s group for not opposing others as vigorously as they do, then the word should apply.
In this case, we have a world today where the harvest is more plentiful than ever, with a greater number of people claiming to be atheist or non-religious than at any time in history. Yet rather than going into the harvest, we have potential harvesters that spend time criticizing others that are out there with those who are lost for not evangelizing the way they would.
I am not going to say that this applies to Taylor Marshall for I am very ignorant of him. I do believe it applies to a group founded ostensible to promote life, like LSN, yet spends more time battling with comrades from other brigades.
In this case, we have a world today where the harvest is more plentiful than ever, with a greater number of people claiming to be atheist or non-religious than at any time in history. Yet rather than going into the harvest, we have potential harvesters that spend time criticizing others that are out there with those who are lost for not evangelizing the way they would.
I am not going to say that this applies to Taylor Marshall for I am very ignorant of him. I do believe it applies to a group founded ostensible to promote life, like LSN, yet spends more time battling with comrades from other brigades.
A
Alphard
Guest
Yeah i’m aware what the prefix “ultra” means in Latin. I was just wondering what meant for tgose utilizing the term. If simply means that someone truly believes in conservative, or better, Christian values, then why don’t just say “conservatives”?
The reality it is that’s used in pejorative manner to present somone as a lunatic or fascist, for the guilt of truly opposing the left, and not being a fake opposition of many “normal conservatives”
I don’t know well the site we are discussing, but the fact they are attacked in this way it is a positive sign for me, since the left use nanecalling a lot
The reality it is that’s used in pejorative manner to present somone as a lunatic or fascist, for the guilt of truly opposing the left, and not being a fake opposition of many “normal conservatives”
I don’t know well the site we are discussing, but the fact they are attacked in this way it is a positive sign for me, since the left use nanecalling a lot
P
pnewton
Guest
Using labels is hardly limited to any ideology. Even the concept of “the left” as some monolithic block is s label, and is the very name-calling you are objecting to. The AP, as a source that that at least attempts do reduce bias is simply acknowledging the realty that there is no “left” or conservative block, but that there is a continuum from outright communism, to complete fascism. Less severe and more popular are the socialist and the ultraconservative. Closer in are those that are accused of being DINO’s and RINO’s by their fellow party members. Yet even then, there is a continuum. The day there is no appreciation for such nuance, and that day may be approaching, the United States will decline, being and unstable nation split into by two deaf and blind ideologies.
Truly, no nation divided against itself can long stand.
A
Alphard
Guest
Using the word “left” is not name calling as i mean. Leftist acknoledge they are leftists, same ar right wing. Left, right, republican, democrat are neutral words, do not convey a judice. Meanwhile words like ultraconservative, fascist, homophobe, etc used by leftists convey a negative meaning and are used to delegitimize the adversary. No one calls himself one of these terms, they are an attack
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I can sympathize with that. And I do think Snopes does have a bias, though most of the things I read on their site (debunking various internet myths and hoaxes) are pretty well done. But personal experience leads me to distrust LSN’s reporting, even if I agree with many of their perspectives on various issues and teachings. They insert way too much editorializing for my taste.
P
pnewton
Guest
I believe you are correct, in my own experience, though it is not all that much. I would say they lean to the left.
Crusader13
New member
No they’re not. The issue isn’t about a site’s labeling but whether what they are saying is true.
There was nothing in the video that was untrue or considered conspiracy theory. They are talking about a section of the final document that was removed in the english translation and how it could be used as a stepping stone towards women’s ordination.
You view the issue of female altar servers as a separate issue from women’s ordination. Yet, why do we need women serving at the altar? Why do we need women deacons and a formalization of women lectors, which is what they are asking for.
JP2 said females should not serve at the altar. Then in 1983 he promulgated the new code of canon law which through its language in section 230 directly contradicted JP2’s statement and the issue was debated and eventually decided that women could serve.
P
pnewton
Guest
Then let me explain it as best as I can why I see a difference. There is a doctrine, a dogma now, that women cannot be ordained priests. Ordinatio sacerdotalis defined this absolutely.
There is no such declaration for any other lay ministry by women. There is nothing remotely like it. He does more than say women cannot be priests. He stated the Church does not have authority do this, making it clear this is no discipline. As to videos that contradict what the Church said, why would any Catholic give such a source more authority than the Church, much less waste time watching it? I sure don’t feel any need to read Alexander Hislop to know the Catholic Church doesn’t worship Isis and Osiris.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
You’re making my point. The issue of female altar servers was address once in 1970 I believe, in the document Liturgicae Instaurationes and then by Pope JP 2 in Inaestimabile Donum which also held up the understanding that women were prohibited from serving at the altar.
My point is that there are numerous Popes and documents that we can point to that support the theology and practice of certain aspects of liturgical norms. And yet the effort to get around these issues is still prevalent. They used the new code of canon law to help bypass the issue of women serving at the altar, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see what other ambiguous teaching or newly drafted papal document they use in the future to get around the issue of women’s ordination.
Last edited:
- Status