FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What's the general opinion of CAF?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
I've noticed that there is some hostility with FE members when speaking about Catholic Answers Forums.  Why is this?  Is the content that different from FE?

I personally find the site hard to navigate, and got very annoyed at all of the adverts.
They have a double standard when enforcing their rules, coming down particularly hard on the trad-inclined while the neo-Cats and their fellow travelers are allowed to bait the trads with seeming impunity.

Also, they seem to frown on smart assery, which leaves me up a creek.  Meh. 
(03-13-2012, 09:36 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]They have a double standard when enforcing their rules, coming down particularly hard on the trad-inclined while the neo-Cats and their fellow travelers are allowed to bait the trads with seeming impunity.

Also, they seem to frown on smart assery, which leaves me up a creek.  Meh. 

What about faithfully reasonable smart-assness?
Fish Eaters is for traditional Catholics.  CAF has a sub-forum that is about traditional Catholicism. A significant proportion of the posts are by people who are hostile to traditional Catholicism.  Topics that everyone here takes for granted - e.g. the TLM is a better Mass, Communion should be received on the tongue, EMHCs are a mistake - are under constant and acrimonious debate there.  Many of the things we debate here are not allowed to be discussed.

There is also a different approach to moderation.  Vox has a lighter hand as a moderator.
(03-13-2012, 09:49 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Fish Eaters is for traditional Catholics.  CAF has a sub-forum that is about traditional Catholicism. A significant proportion of the posts are by people who are hostile to traditional Catholicism.   Topics that everyone here takes for granted - e.g. the TLM is a better Mass, Communion should be received on the tongue, EMHCs are a mistake - are under constant and acrimonious debate there.  Many of the things we debate here are not allowed to be discussed.

There is also a different approach to moderation.  Vox has a lighter hand as a moderator.

Yes, I've come to like Vox very much.  :)
(03-13-2012, 09:49 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Communion should be received on the tongue

Here I go changing the subject, but why on earth isn't this the practice?  I don't like the idea of receiving in my hand, as some particles of my Lord's flesh may linger on my hands.  I've seen it done both ways at the parish I'm soon to attend again.  When I receive communion in the future, can I just hang my mouth open?  I've seen people do this there.  Is it frowned upon or something? 

Also, I've seen some people recieve only Christ's body and not His Precious Blood. I cannot tell you how much I dislike this.  What say the trads on this subject?
(03-13-2012, 09:56 PM)ServantofGod Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I've come to like Vox very much.   :)

There is a lot to admire. The FE website is her work.
(03-13-2012, 09:59 PM)ServantofGod Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-13-2012, 09:49 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Communion should be received on the tongue

Here I go changing the subject, but why on earth isn't this the practice?  I don't like the idea of receiving in my hand, as some particles of my Lord's flesh may linger on my hands.  I've seen it done both ways at the parish I'm soon to attend again.  When I receive communion in the future, can I just hang my mouth open?  I've seen people do this there.  Is it frowned upon or something? 

Receiving on the tongue is allowed in the Novus Ordo just not encouraged.  Certainly you should receive on the tongue.

Quote:Also, I've seen some people recieve only Christ's body and not His Precious Blood. I cannot tell you how much I dislike this.  What say the trads on this subject?

Historically, receiving under both species is associated with Protestantism, although there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with it that I know of. I am not comfortable with it myself, but I don't strongly oppose it.
(03-13-2012, 09:59 PM)ServantofGod Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I've seen some people recieve only Christ's body and not His Precious Blood. I cannot tell you how much I dislike this.  What say the trads on this subject?

The TLM, which you have indicated that you would like to attend if you could, does not allow the false archaeologism of Reception under both Species which is no more or less than a surrender to protestantism.
(03-13-2012, 10:32 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-13-2012, 09:59 PM)ServantofGod Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I've seen some people recieve only Christ's body and not His Precious Blood. I cannot tell you how much I dislike this.  What say the trads on this subject?

The TLM, which you have indicated that you would like to attend if you could, does not allow the false archaeologism of Reception under both Species which is no more or less than a surrender to protestantism.

This is interesting.  It was the practice in Orthodoxy to receive under both auspices.

In the TLM, do you still receive both, just separately ?

I guess what bothers me most is the fact that the Blood which washes away the sins of the world is right there for one to receive, yet people walk away.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6