Traditional Catholic Books and Websites?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Religio71
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
www.booksforcatholics.com is an excellent resource. Lots of great books on Church history, the current controversy, etc. They are the main source for Roman Catholic Books, Roger McCaffrey’s publishing house. In fact, I just got a package from them today that includes the new, revised edition of POPE JOHN’S COUNCIL by Michael Davies, PARADOXES OF CATHOLICISM by Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson, LEAD KINDLY LIGHT by Davies(the biography of Newman), and BENEDICT XVI by Michael Rose. Great quality and fast service.
 
Good grief. Why is it a thread requesting book and website recommendations ends up in a Vatican II debate? I believe there are enough V2 threads currently running. I’m not judging anyone here; actually I think this tendency speaks more about the Council than the Catholics.
 
tobinatorstark said:
But the site also openly criticizes the Vatican II council which isn’t licit. This is why I would recommend staying away from this dangerous site. Yes it promotes traditional Catholic views, but it also has some heretical views that is detrimental to Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Once again, I’ll recommend Fisheaters.com

tobi,

How are criticisms of VII not licit? You failed to address this adequately earlier in this thread.

What heretical views are to be found on the Fisheaters website?

This info would be important to a discussion on good resources. If Fisheaters is bad, I’d like to know why.
 
CassiusLonginus said:
Once again, I’ll recommend Fisheaters.com

tobi,

How are criticisms of VII not licit? You failed to address this adequately earlier in this thread.

What heretical views are to be found on the Fisheaters website?

This info would be important to a discussion on good resources. If Fisheaters is bad, I’d like to know why.
Click to expand...
fisheaters.com/forcatholics.html

anything on this page regarding Liturgy. I will not stand by that site whatsoever. It should be added to the list of banned websites here at Catholic Answers. As laity we must abide by Magisterium and anything the Church has set forth for us. Is it licit to deny the Magisterium? No, it isn’t. It isn’t licit to criticize the council because, 1 you weren’t there. You don’t have the authority to interpret anything the Church says or does. The Church does. 2. Let me ask you this, have you read the Vatican II documents?? If you haven’t, how can you criticize something you know nothing about? If you have read the documents, is there anything that contradicts Catholic teaching?? I have yet to find anything that contradicts Church teaching. If I did have anything that I thought might contradict. I would go to a priest for a legit explanation. We simply aren’t to interpret the Church, but the Church is. By criticism of the Council, you are trying to allow private interpretation and abide in the Church and her intrepretation. Yes somethings have been misinterpreted, but that is being ironed out. I will stand up against fisheaters as being a legit source. I will not stand for anything that criticizes Vatican II, denies Vatican II or the Popes following Pope Pius XII and I will most certainly not stand by any link that provides works done by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
 
Ockham said:
Good grief. Why is it a thread requesting book and website recommendations ends up in a Vatican II debate? I believe there are enough V2 threads currently running. I’m not judging anyone here; actually I think this tendency speaks more about the Council than the Catholics.
Click to expand...
Because some people have an ax to grind.
 
CassiusLonginus said:
Fisheaters.com

Fisheaters is FULL of well presented material that covers about anything you’d want to know about traditional Catholicism. In my opinion it’s the single best and easiest site to navigate for quick references on all things traditional. There’s nothing wrong or unorthodox about the site, even if there are differences of opinion in their forum. Just remember that forum members don’t necessarily represent the views of Fisheaters in the exact way that forum members here don’t necessarily represent the views of Catholic Answers (a distinction that some people simply couldn’t get their minds around in the Fisheaters thread here at CAF a few weeks ago). Just check it out for yourself and start soakin’ in all the awesomeness. BTW, I found that site and loved it before I was ever a traditional Catholic.

Angelus Press, and the others mentioned above. Watch out for the binding on paper-back books from TAN…very easy to crack/crease the spine of the book.
Click to expand...
I’d beware of Fisheaters.com. They have several fidelity issues:

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1915
 
Holly3278 said:
I’d beware of Fisheaters.com. They have several fidelity issues:

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1915
Click to expand...
exactly what I have been saying all along goes according to the link you provided. While fisheaters provides wonderful traditional prayers and such the rejection of the New Mass and criticism of the Vatican II isn’t licit. They have no authority to do so. Rejection of the New Mass and criticism of Vatican II is promoting heresy. Therefore this is one reason why I stand behind my concern not to be exposed and encourage others not to visit this site.
 
If there isn’t already, their really needs to be a limit to how many times you post the same thing in 1 thread. We have already figured out that you don’t care for the site, I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish by repeating the same thing over and over and over again in 1 thread.

Accept the fact that many posters here do not agree with you as evidence by the many postings supporting the site.
 
Cider said:
If there isn’t already, their really needs to be a limit to how many times you post the same thing in 1 thread. We have already figured out that you don’t care for the site, I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish by repeating the same thing over and over and over again in 1 thread.

Accept the fact that many posters here do not agree with you as evidence by the many postings supporting the site.
Click to expand...
I am only standing up for what is right against what is wrong
 
Holly3278 said:
I’d beware of Fisheaters.com. They have several fidelity issues:

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1915
Click to expand...
CatholicCulture’s review is outdated and inaccurate - they claim to have last reviewed us 12/20/08, but if so, they didn’t do a good job because some of the pages changed before that date and no longer contained material that they complained about.

We have made attempts in the past to correct them, and others have on our behalf as well, but they fall on deaf ears.

In addition, since they do not have delegated authority by their Ordinary, nor, AFAIK any STL’s or STD’s or Canonists doing reviews (or anyone with a degree in theology for that matter - Dr. Mirus’ degree is in Intellectual History and he heads their review board), their opinion counts no more than yours or mine.

Like CA and FE, they are lay people with an online apostolate and nothing more.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I am only standing up for what is right against what is wrong
Click to expand...
One could do that without lying and bearing false witness. If you disagree with how we approach Catholicism, that’s fine, but you should do so honestly. You have lied about the site in the past, and you continue to do so.

You should review the Cardinal Virtues:

1805 Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called “cardinal”; all the others are grouped around them. They are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. "If anyone loves righteousness, [Wisdom’s] labors are virtues; for she teaches temperance and prudence, justice, and courage."64

You will notice misrepresentation, lies, and calumny are not among them.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I am only standing up for what is right against what is wrong
Click to expand...
Tobin they do not reject Vatican II, and if it is not licit to criticize Vatican II like you say can you provide me with an official document? You say the folks at Fisheaters deny the Ordinary Form but if you read the forum you’d clearly see some members attend it (may not be a first choice but you wouldn’t attend something you say isn’t a real Mass). The denial of the validity of Popes succeeding Puis XII is brought up, but if you asked them who is the Pope they’d say Benedict XVI and before him John Paul II. You say they should be banned from the site, even though the majority of posters would seem to disagree with you. You jump at the chance to spread your ignorance at best and lies at worst about FE every time it comes up.
 
FEQuis said:
You accused our site of heresy. That is calumny. Do you understand what calumny is? Do you understand what bearing false witness is?
Click to expand...
I am well aware what calumny is and bearing false witness. There have been times that I have done false witness and have slandered, but in this case I have not I do speak the truth.
FEQuis said:
One could do that without lying and bearing false witness. If you disagree with how we approach Catholicism, that’s fine, but you should do so honestly. You have lied about the site in the past, and you continue to do so.

You should review the Cardinal Virtues:

1805 Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called “cardinal”; all the others are grouped around them. They are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. "If anyone loves righteousness, [Wisdom’s] labors are virtues; for she teaches temperance and prudence, justice, and courage."64

You will notice misrepresentation, lies, and calumny are not among them.
Click to expand...
You are just sore because I don’t find your site worthwhile and that I encourage people to not visit your site. I have reviewed your site over and over again. It offends not only me, but those who accept the Novus Ordo mass. I am not misrepresenting, lying or demonstrating calumny.
 
I’ve found it’s just easier to use the ignore feature on those that insist on being deliberately obtuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top