FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Questions for Mr. Coulombe
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Mr. Coulombe, I've got TONS of things I'd love to talk with you about! To get this party started, here are a few questions I'd love to hear you respond to some time:


[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  What are your general impressions of how traditional Catholicism is represented on the internet? What problems do you see, if any? What, if any, changes need to be made?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  Do you ever look over different Catholic discussion forums? If so, what are your general impressions?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  What is your take on criticism of the Holy Father and of Bishops? Do you take a "ChurchMilitantTV view" that it's OK to criticize Bishops, but not the Pope? Or that it's OK to criticize either as long as respect is shown? Or --- ?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  Doing what I do, I know that there are lots of trads who totally white-knuckling it under this papacy, hanging on to the Faith by a mere thread. What advice would you give them to stay strong and not give into despair -- perhaps even despair in the deep, Catholic sense of the word?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  What is your take on the different sub-sets of "traditional Catholics" -- e.g., "diocesan trads," "SSPXers," sedevacantists, etc.? (for the record, here is how FishEaters defines "traditional Catholicism")

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  What do you think has happened that's made Catholics "lose footing" in the Arts? I mean, where are the great Catholic artists these days? What's happened?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  I recently posted about your Ultra-Realism FAQ and had this to say about a point you made:

Vox Wrote:For me, there are many, many reasons to prefer the Platonic approach to things, but one of the most important is this, from Coulombe:

Ultra-Realism FAQ Wrote:Quote from: Charles Coulombe's Ultra-Realism FAQ

    c. Divine Illumination

    Here we see the Christian acceptance that beyond a certain point, reason cannot go. Man can, by virtue of his reason, figure out that there is a Creator, that He ought to be worshipped, etc. But anything more complex requires direct illumination from God; indeed, without such illumination we can be sure of nothing of importance. Aristotle and St. Thomas denied this, holding that human reason unaided can go quite far, indeed.

While the Faith needs apologists and needs to be defended, and while it can by defended by reason, the natural sciences, the social sciences, psychology, etc., I think it's absolutely true that it's grace, not intellectual achievement, that is the source of faith in the Holy Religion. And believing this is also helpful when dealing with those who are not -- or at least not yet -- Catholic. Belief in the divinity of Christ, the miracles He performed, the Resurrection, His conception by the Holy Ghost -- I don't think these things can be "known by" reason (though they're obviously not "unreasonable" and can be defended by reason). When dealing with bad-willed atheists, it's less frustrating to just give reasons for your belief and finish off with a, "Well, you haven't been illuminated, so of course you wouldn't understand" rather than bang your head against their walls. Plus, it sounds a lot more intriguing -- "What? Really? But - but I want to be 'illuminated,' too! How do I get 'illuminated'?!" -- and leads to their possibly actually praying rather than relying on their own malformed intellects.

Do you think, as I do, that the modern way of treating the Faith more as a mere philosophy rather than a gift of grace is one of the more serious problems we have when it comes to evangelizing (and to hanging on to the Faith when the going gets tough)? Me, I think that what you mention regarding divine illumination in that FAQ is supremely liberating for apologists and "spreaders of the word." It doesn't at all let us "off the hook" with regard to evangelizing and defending the Faith using reason, but it does free us up from thinking we can convince people using reason even before they've accepted the premises of the Faith -- premises which rest on the miraculous and which those inflicted with scientism will never get as long as they're stuck with their "if I can't put it in a Petri dish, it doesn't exist or matter" mind-set.

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  I am 100% with you with regard to the wisdom of monarchy. How do you think monarchy could arise -- if you think it could at all -- in States that have no History of monarchy -- and which lack a worldview that includes a concept of divine order? Do you think monarchism could exist in a secular society?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  What do you think of when you hear the phrase "conspiracy theory"?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  What do you think are the implied -- or pre-consciously held -- premises that underlie the thinking of the average white American? What about the average African-American?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  Do you think the media are trying to foment a race war? If so, why?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  On a purely political level, what do you think are the greatest problems facing the United States? Europe? The West in general? Are your responses different for each? And what are the solutions?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  Where do you get your news from?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  What do you think of Donald Trump? Whom will you be voting for?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  What is your take on the works of E. Michael Jones of "Culture Wars"?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  What is your take on the idea that voting is worthless (at least in the U.S.)?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  What are your "guilty pleasures"? What does that phrase mean to you?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  What sort of music do you find yourself most often listening to -- i.e., not "what music do you respect the most?", but what to you really actually listen to most often?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  When you want a drink-drink, what ends up in your glass?

[Image: fcredsquare.gif]  You're a tad less than three years older than I (I was born on January 21, 1963). In the 1970s, I was nuts. Seriously insane in the membrane, to quote Cypress Hill. Were you ever nuts? Have you always had the Faith? Did you ever go through a "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" phase and/or an agnostic, "let's try out Buddhism" phase? If not, why not? If so, what was that phase of your life like -- and how did you pull out of it?

I could go on for a good, long while, but will stop myself LOL


Whew! What a lot of questions! Well, let's deal with the first one, anyway. " What are your general impressions of how traditional Catholicism is represented on the internet? What problems do you see, if any? What, if any, changes need to be made?"

Well, as with so many things,before we can answer the question, we have to define our terms. What is "traditional Catholicism?  It is a term which - though I use it myself, and about myself, I am not really comfortable with. Why? Because despite its apparent clarity - "someone who holds to Catholic Tradition," it is in practise an extremely subjective term.

Even sticking purely to matters liturgical, many of those who call themselves "Traditional" would do eny it to those who accept the 1962 Missal, with the changes mandated by Ven. Pius XII and St. John XXIII (for the record, I myself do not like the former Pontiff's scrapping of Octaves andNew Rites of Holy Week, or the latter's calendar changes and alteration of the Roman Pontificale). Now then, I can make such a denial, secure in my 1954 Missal - or can I?  Did not St. Pius X make some egregious alterations to the calendar and breviary? AN what about his Motu Proprio on Sacred Music, banning Orchestral Masses - which had been accepted by Popes for at least three or four centuries? You can play that game right back to the beginning - as these satirists did, years ago (http://www.ancillapress.com/SSPI/SSPIindex.html).

And you can inject other issues into the fight - what about sky blue vestments fir Marian Feasts in lands there part of the Spanish Empire? Fiddleback versus Gothic chasubles? And on and on. Then there is the question of Reform of the Reform types, SSPX, and all the rest.

Add historical and political issues, and you can go truly mad. How can you be a truly traditional American Caholic if you accept or reject the teachings of Archbishop John Carroll, and our republic? How can you be a traditional Spanish Catholic, unless you accept or reject the Carlists. Alfonso XIII (who consecrated the country to the Sacred Heart), or Franco? Ditto with France and the Legitimate Bourbons, the House of Orleans, Napoleon III, Petain or De Gaulle?

Now, don't be misled - I have very definite views on all these topics and many more - can't be a Jacobite otherwise! However, for me to label those disagree with me in these areas as "un-Traditional" or "Modernist" or even "Reactionary," and deny their Catholicity on the basis of  that disagreement is flat out wrong.  Dogmas come befoe Liturgy, and before political/historical/cultural questions.

We Catholics have four Creeds, which we are suposed to accept in their entirety - The Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian, or Tridentine. If you can read and accept all four without any ifs, ands, or buts, then you are a Catholic, regardless of whether you are Marshal Petain or Dorothy Day - and my brother or sister in the Faith, regardless of any differences we have in opinion or practise. I may not agree with you - I may not even like you. But I cannot deny your Catholicity.

So to be honest, if I were given my druthers, I'd prefer we all said "believing" rather than "traditional Catholic" - though I doubt that is likeley to catch on.  And that is the answer to your first sentence of this question - we are quick to excommunicate, and to create enemies when we have neither the need nor the authority to.

But that said, the reason we are in this state is because we are all trying to figure our way in a hostile world coupled with the lack of a clear exercise of authority on the part of the hierarchy - as has happened yet again with chittering over Cardinal Sarah's invitation to priests to offer the Novus Ordo ad Orientem. At every turn, was as lay-folk (and priests, religious of seminarians) are forced to deal with questions we should never have to - as we have had to for at least five decades.

What needs to be done? The exercise of charity (especially by suspending judgement over other people's motivations) and by believing and practising the Faith as well as we can ourselves.

There is certainly nothing wrong with forthrightly stating our opinions, and backing them up as well we know how; nor is there either in rebutting in a measured (and equally backed up) manner the arguements of those who disagree with us. But let us never forget that none of us is the Holy Office, and Catholics who disagree with our views are not sinning - unless they deny an article of one of the four Creeds.
Now for the next one. "Do you ever look over different Catholic discussion forums? If so, what are your general impressions?" I do not. It is all I can do to keep my FB threads from exploding! But if thelatter resemble the former inany way, I would say that it is all too easy to generate more heat than light, to descend to the ad hominem (which is a tacit admission that you have no real backing for your view save emotion),and to feel good about being right than learning anything.One problem, of course, is that we have lost any sense of decorum or courtesy in real life - add to that the anonymity of the web,and the temptation tobe really nastu for no purpse save self-gratification becomes enormouse. If that does NOT resembles what goes on in atholic iscussion Fora, than I have nothing useful to say!
That's all for to-day! We'll take aother crack at it to-morrow!

First of all, I'm so glad you're here. I loves ya, Porgy :)

Second, I took the liberty of inserting some paragraphs into your first response. It came out looking like a big wall of text. I hope I put white spaces where you would have!

Third, I think I should apologize for throwing that many questions at you! I was just wanting to get the party started here and didn't really expect you to answer all of them (though I'd love it if you would, of course). Feel free to ignore any and all you'd like and write about other stuff. OK? OK!

Fourth, if you do answer another question of mine, or write about anything else, how about starting a new thread for that topic? Sound good?

I definitely agree with you about our willingness to "excommunicate" each other. So often it goes way beyond merely putting labels on how/where one worships and into judging others' holiness. Das las sein for me. I do think the traditional ways are vastly and objectively superior, but I know too many wonderful and apparently holy people who haven't thought once about "traditional Catholicism" vs. "Novus Ordo Catholicism" to think that those who attend only N.O. Masses, even if they have a choice, are "bad Catholics."

I do, though, have a working definition of "traditional Catholicism" for this website. You can find that here:  http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

Your answer to the question "what needs to be done?" -- "The exercise of charity (especially by suspending judgement over other people's motivations) and by believing and practising the Faith as well as we can ourselves" -- is perfection. See my sig line. That's not me talking; that's Lord Christ. Sorta says it all, eh?
 
(07-12-2016, 03:05 PM)Charles A. Coulombe Wrote: [ -> ]Now for the next one. "Do you ever look over different Catholic discussion forums? If so, what are your general impressions?" I do not. It is all I can do to keep my FB threads from exploding! But if thelatter resemble the former inany way, I would say that it is all too easy to generate more heat than light, to descend to the ad hominem (which is a tacit admission that you have no real backing for your view save emotion),and to feel good about being right than learning anything.One problem, of course, is that we have lost any sense of decorum or courtesy in real life - add to that the anonymity of the web,and the temptation tobe really nastu for no purpse save self-gratification becomes enormouse. If that does NOT resembles what goes on in atholic iscussion Fora, than I have nothing useful to say!

"More heat than light" -- too often true. There are good fora out there, and some supremely nasty ones. Very nasty. I try to keep the FishEaters forum civil. I've had to ban a number of people to get it this way, but the purpose of this entire website is to bring souls to Christ and His Church, and to restore Tradition. Having mayhem and ugliness in the discussion forum would defeat this place's very raison d'etre, so -- off with the people who treat the Faith as a mere philosophy to argue about, who judge souls, and all that.

The internet is where most people first encounter Tradition. That's a huge responsibility for a person who has a website with a name ike, "FishEaters: The Hows and Whys of Traditional Catholicism". I'm terrified of the idea of some passerby seeing nastiness on the forum and leaving, thinking, "so, that's what traditional Catholics are like!" So I try to stay on top of things. I think you'll like it here :)