FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
So far the only alternative listed has been Eponymous Flower. Any others?
(02-01-2012, 04:30 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Right so unless you're a leading light go away? I don't think so and the only reason anyone would be offended is if they were completely and I mean completely and totally new to the traditionalist movement in which case they could just ignore the comments section like many people do. Also to put it bluntly if you don't really read RC or participate you should perhaps take the word of those who do and are saying that this about more than just 'nasty comments'

No. Otherwise I'd go away too! Let's all just take a dose of humility, including a realistic assessment of what we know. The RC decision isn't in a vacuum. Many traditionalist groups, publications, etc. have a problem with prideful people who know enough to really cause some trouble. This is all in the context of the first posts which said they (RC) are getting watered-down, and where to jump ship to before it is sunk. Maybe Jackson and you can enlighten everyone what exactly is being watered down. They don't love the SSPX enough? Or is the watering down simply just not agreeing with you all the time?

(02-01-2012, 04:30 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]And yet no one has seen those poll results  :P But really you hardly change another site because some people don't like it, those who you are not even aiming the site at.

It seems like those people are in the target audience, i.e., part-time trad Mass. I mean, Fish Eaters has a lot of these people.

(02-01-2012, 04:30 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]As for Pope bashing perhaps if the popes didn't do such outrageous actions people wouldn't have to criticise them for it?

Bad principle to hold. The Pope's actions may outrage people, but those individuals choose to take action in ways which sometimes lack charity, or at the very least are formulated in less than optimal ways. There's a time for the carrot, and a time for the stick. It is a hard balance in criticizing the Pope or a Council, for instance, because by its nature it diminishes the Faith. What it is is you add your insult to an already existing injury. Some folks just aren't good at spiritual medicine, even when said medicine may be quite painful. Only these people do I have in mind.

By the way, I've had my comments deleted from Fr Z, and he was off the mark for doing it, but in retrospect I was off the mark by coming into the topic like a bull in a china shop. A friend of mine would always say about my shinny black 1978 Nova, "Bees to honey." Your words should be like bees to honey. Even if the words are harsh, they should literally be attractive in their righteousness, just as we are attracted by our Lord clearing the Temple. If you post good comments, then I am sure RC would be persuaded by your good words.
Some quotes from New Catholic (blog owner) in the comments:

"No, we do not want you or anyone else to be anything in particular. A very firm and critical opinion can be expressed in surprisingly civil and positive terms."

Anonymous Petrus Radii said... Respect for the Vicar of Christ does not and cannot exclude valid criticism of wrong, stupid, or imprudent actions on his part. "Hate the sin but love the sinner."

"Would you say those things to his face, Petrus Radii?... Even "stupid"?... The context is clear: of course a commentator may say that he disagrees with one action of the Pope, or with a certain fallible opinion. We said "person" - how could it be any clearer?"

"Try to see things through the eyes of a newcomer: as hosts, we must try our best to make all feel welcome, particularly the shy and silent ones in the corner. Otherwise, how will they ever join the conversation?"

"Thanks to all those, especially the Priests (unanimously!), who have shown their support. To those who disagree: please, pray for us."


Maybe this is the same with Vox being a little tired of some types of speech? Or the Remnant. Or my priest. There is a strong sentiment that most trads don't want some types of speech to rule the debate.
Friends, in case my original post, along with the title to this thread, were unclear, I'm interested in nothing other than direct responses to this question:

What are the best alternatives to the Rorate Caeli blog?

Surely Eponymous Flower isn't the only one.
(02-01-2012, 06:04 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: [ -> ]Friends, in case my original post, along with the title to this thread, were unclear, I'm interested in nothing other than direct responses to this question:

What are some good alternatives to the Rorate Caeli blog?

Surely Eponymous Flower isn't the only one.

Actually, I don't like EF.  I think it's minimal and whenever more than a paragraph is posted, annoyingly opinionated.  But that's just me. 

Honestly, I don't really follow blogs much at all.  Usually just when they're posted on FE.

Oh, FE has a blog.  Rosarium makes great posts, I think. 
(02-01-2012, 06:04 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: [ -> ]Friends, in case my original post, along with the title to this thread, were unclear, I'm interested in nothing other than direct responses to this question:

What are the best alternatives to the Rorate Caeli blog?

Surely Eponymous Flower isn't the only one.

People need to know what you mean by "watered down" so as to have an idea what might make a suitable substitute. For example, "Try XYZ Blog' and you think they are even more watered down than RC.

It's like asking "any recommendations for a sub for Coke? Because it's become too watered down". Someone suggests Pepsi, well to me, Pepsi is worse than Coke! See?
Again I've failed to be sufficiently clear. I'm asking this question to those who are aware that Rorate Caeili is watered down, and are aware of how this is so. I'm not interested in explaining how this is so. To those who know, it needs no explanation. To those who don't, I'm not willing to waste time in explaining it. I've thrown enough pearls to swine. I'm no longer interested in doing so. Nor am I interested in wading through the sanctimonious instruction of the likes of Scriptorium.
(02-01-2012, 07:02 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: [ -> ]Again I've failed to be sufficiently clear. I'm asking this question to those who are aware that Rorate Caeili is watered down, and are aware of how this is so. I'm not interested in explaining how this is so. To those who know, it needs no explanation. To those who don't, I'm not willing to waste time in explaining it. I've thrown enough pearls to swine. I'm no longer interested in doing so. Nor am I interested in wading through the sanctimonious instruction of the likes of Scriptorium.

Well, if you don't explain yourself, how do you expect any answers?  :LOL:
(02-01-2012, 07:02 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: [ -> ]Again I've failed to be sufficiently clear. I'm asking this question to those who are aware that Rorate Caeili is watered down, and are aware of how this is so. I'm not interested in explaining how this is so. To those who know, it needs no explanation. To those who don't, I'm not willing to waste time in explaining it. I've thrown enough pearls to swine. I'm no longer interested in doing so. Nor am I interested in wading through the sanctimonious instruction of the likes of Scriptorium.

I think the problem is that we are all swine and not able to understand these obvious things you are understanding.  Perhaps there's a forum out there that suits you better?
(02-01-2012, 05:01 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]No. Otherwise I'd go away too! Let's all just take a dose of humility, including a realistic assessment of what we know. The RC decision isn't in a vacuum. Many traditionalist groups, publications, etc. have a problem with prideful people who know enough to really cause some trouble. This is all in the context of the first posts which said they (RC) are getting watered-down, and where to jump ship to before it is sunk. Maybe Jackson and you can enlighten everyone what exactly is being watered down. They don't love the SSPX enough? Or is the watering down simply just not agreeing with you all the time?

Did you see me say watering down? No. I said that they were changing their agenda and that their decision on comments seemed foolish, what they are doing is failing to let anyone criticise the popes or point out the realities of decisions, i.e. something looks great but actually isn't it.

(02-01-2012, 05:01 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like those people are in the target audience, i.e., part-time trad Mass. I mean, Fish Eaters has a lot of these people.
As I said no one has seen the poll results and their news stories would certainly not be for that audience.

(02-01-2012, 05:01 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Bad principle to hold. The Pope's actions may outrage people, but those individuals choose to take action in ways which sometimes lack charity, or at the very least are formulated in less than optimal ways. There's a time for the carrot, and a time for the stick. It is a hard balance in criticizing the Pope or a Council, for instance, because by its nature it diminishes the Faith. What it is is you add your insult to an already existing injury. Some folks just aren't good at spiritual medicine, even when said medicine may be quite painful. Only these people do I have in mind.
I am afraid you simply don't know what you're talking about, the comments at Rorate are never and have never been that bad. What they are is truthful, and truthful is not wrong.

As for my principle its entirely fine, one does no one any good by denying a popes blatantly heterodox actions or opinions but rather should discuss them openly (as the scandal is already public), charitably and truthfully, something that most people who commented on the blog do.

(02-01-2012, 05:01 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]By the way, I've had my comments deleted from Fr Z, and he was off the mark for doing it, but in retrospect I was off the mark by coming into the topic like a bull in a china shop. A friend of mine would always say about my shinny black 1978 Nova, "Bees to honey." Your words should be like bees to honey. Even if the words are harsh, they should literally be attractive in their righteousness, just as we are attracted by our Lord clearing the Temple. If you post good comments, then I am sure RC would be persuaded by your good words.

Not if they don't suit their agenda, it doesn't matter how 'nice' your comments are, some people just don't like harsh truths, no matter how you dress them up.
Pages: 1 2 3 4