FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: AHHHHHHHHHHH....CAF!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
SoI can’t look at Catholic answer forums anymore.  Like I am going insane.  So many people on those board are giving advice who have no idea what they are talking about.

- you can eat meat on Fridays of Lent, the old rules have been done away with.  For Friday’s of Lent Angry
- going to a Protestant Church is ok if you are unable to get to a Catholic mass because not having a vehicle or ride to mass.  They are telling a teenager that.
- an article posted about stop leaving mass early and most jumping up and down about we can’t judge.  Yeah cause when 1/4 of the pews empty out after mass the majority all have legit reasons for not staying the extra 5-10 mins
- I’m not even going to get into the death penalty church teaching stuff. I would gather most thought it immoral before Pope Francis



Sorry for the rant but I get so mad seeing Catholics ask sincere questions and get answers that are not inline with the faith.  Rant over.
They probably don't think you need to fast before taking communion either. Sigh...

This is sad to hear.

This is a quote I saw the other day that I posted in another thread.

Quote:"It is not that I want merely to be called a Christian, but to actually be one. Yes, if I prove to be one, then I can have the name."

— St. Ignatius of Antioch
I believe a great deal of us used to be on CAF before coming here. In my opinion, the forums are not good, but their other resources are great.
(03-03-2019, 08:35 PM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]I believe a great deal of us used to be on CAF before coming here. In my opinion, the forums are not good, but their other resources are great.

I agree.  The actual website is good but the forums... ahh.  Although the one good thing about the forums is it is extremely active.  To bad it has many issues.
(03-03-2019, 08:10 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]SoI can’t look at Catholic answer forums anymore.  Like I am going insane.  So many people on those board are giving advice who have no idea what they are talking about.

- you can eat meat on Fridays of Lent, the old rules have been done away with.  For Friday’s of Lent Angry
- going to a Protestant Church is ok if you are unable to get to a Catholic mass because not having a vehicle or ride to mass.  They are telling a teenager that.
- an article posted about stop leaving mass early and most jumping up and down about we can’t judge.  Yeah cause when 1/4 of the pews empty out after mass the majority all have legit reasons for not staying the extra 5-10 mins
- I’m not even going to get into the death penalty church teaching stuff. I would gather most thought it immoral before Pope Francis



Sorry for the rant but I get so mad seeing Catholics ask sincere questions and get answers that are not inline with the faith.  Rant over.

That is because they've banned everyone who does know what they're talking about. CAF tests the direction of the wind and runs with it.  There is more politics there than apostolate. I joined CAF around the time Benedict XVI became pope.  They were quite conservative then.  If I recall, there were quite a few on there who supported the death penalty.  I remember quite a few discussions about leaving after communion, and the attitude towards it definitely was not favorable or indifferent.  They also weren't the type who would ever tell someone to go to a protestant church if they couldn't go to Mass, unless perhaps it was someone who wanted to convert but was still subject to their parents' authority.  That isn't to say they were good back then.  They were absolutely dreadful.  I know of at least one person- and that's just one person who I know in person, who've spent more hours discussing the Faith with than I can count- whose faith was severely, and perhaps irreparably damaged because of CAF.  If the people who ran CAF had any decency, they'd take a good, hard look at what CAF has done over the years, and shut it down.  I am thankful for Francis.  By being someone so ideologically different than his predecessors, and by giving enemies of the Faith a prominent platform, he gives us an opportunity to see clearly who is really orthodox, and who is just a suck up.
(03-03-2019, 08:35 PM)The In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]I believe a great deal of us used to be on CAF before coming here. In my opinion, the forums are not good, but their other resources are great.

That was my thoughts as well. The forums were touchier than Summer Camp McCarrick.
(03-03-2019, 09:17 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-03-2019, 08:10 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]SoI can’t look at Catholic answer forums anymore.  Like I am going insane.  So many people on those board are giving advice who have no idea what they are talking about.

- you can eat meat on Fridays of Lent, the old rules have been done away with.  For Friday’s of Lent Angry
- going to a Protestant Church is ok if you are unable to get to a Catholic mass because not having a vehicle or ride to mass.  They are telling a teenager that.
- an article posted about stop leaving mass early and most jumping up and down about we can’t judge.  Yeah cause when 1/4 of the pews empty out after mass the majority all have legit reasons for not staying the extra 5-10 mins
- I’m not even going to get into the death penalty church teaching stuff. I would gather most thought it immoral before Pope Francis



Sorry for the rant but I get so mad seeing Catholics ask sincere questions and get answers that are not inline with the faith.  Rant over.

That is because they've banned everyone who does know what they're talking about. CAF tests the direction of the wind and runs with it.  There is more politics there than apostolate. I joined CAF around the time Benedict XVI became pope.  They were quite conservative then.  If I recall, there were quite a few on there who supported the death penalty.  I remember quite a few discussions about leaving after communion, and the attitude towards it definitely was not favorable or indifferent.  They also weren't the type who would ever tell someone to go to a protestant church if they couldn't go to Mass, unless perhaps it was someone who wanted to convert but was still subject to their parents' authority.  That isn't to say they were good back then.  They were absolutely dreadful.  I know of at least one person- and that's just one person who I know in person, who've spent more hours discussing the Faith with than I can count- whose faith was severely, and perhaps irreparably damaged because of CAF.  If the people who ran CAF had any decency, they'd take a good, hard look at what CAF has done over the years, and shut it down.  I am thankful for Francis.  By being someone so ideologically different than his predecessors, and by giving enemies of the Faith a prominent platform, he gives us an opportunity to see clearly who is really orthodox, and who is just a suck up.
it would be one thing if they were personally opposed to the death penalty in all cases but still supported church teaching that although it is licit to use, it should be only for just reason.  l would understand that.  i personally am against the death penalty except if the aggressor can not be safely contained but I support the teaching of the church and will stand up for it.  what some of these people seem to support is something that says its never justified and they proclaim it loudly.  this is not a position of the church.  

i just get so upset because so many people who go on their looking for the real truth get some watered down, not 100% truth of the Catholic faith.
(03-03-2019, 11:22 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]it would be one thing if they were personally opposed to the death penalty in all cases but still supported church teaching that although it is licit to use, it should be only for just reason.  l would understand that.  i personally am against the death penalty except if the aggressor can not be safely contained but I support the teaching of the church and will stand up for it.

While yours is an acceptable position, that's not the traditional - or even current - teaching on the purpose of punishment. CCC 2266 (the paragraph right before the one on capital punishment) says, "The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party."

This is the traditional teaching of the Church, that the primary purpose of punishment is retributive, not merely to protect society from the specific offender.

(03-03-2019, 11:22 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]what some of these people seem to support is something that says its never justified and they proclaim it loudly.  this is not a position of the church.

But... but... St John Paul the Great said it was!
(03-03-2019, 11:40 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-03-2019, 11:22 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]it would be one thing if they were personally opposed to the death penalty in all cases but still supported church teaching that although it is licit to use, it should be only for just reason.  l would understand that.  i personally am against the death penalty except if the aggressor can not be safely contained but I support the teaching of the church and will stand up for it.

While yours is an acceptable position, that's not the traditional - or even current - teaching on the purpose of punishment. CCC 2266 (the paragraph right before the one on capital punishment) says, "The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party."

This is the traditional teaching of the Church, that the primary purpose of punishment is retributive, not merely to protect society from the specific offender.

(03-03-2019, 11:22 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]what some of these people seem to support is something that says its never justified and they proclaim it loudly.  this is not a position of the church.

But... but... St John Paul the Great said it was!

well to be fair, St.John Paul never said the death penalty was inadmissable.  He did allow for its use.  he didn't out right say it was inadmissible
(03-03-2019, 11:44 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]well to be fair, St.John Paul never said the death penalty was inadmissable.  He did allow for its use.  he didn't out right say it was inadmissible

True, but that's not how most Catholics understood it, or how most of the bishops taught it. And most of the documents published during his pontificate cited nothing prior to Vatican II. And yet they treat everything he said as infallible. Except that one about women priests. That doesn't count. Because feminism.
Pages: 1 2 3