FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? (/showthread.php?tid=52878)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - TrentCath - 02-01-2012

(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.

I'm afraid I don't know of any others.


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - Phillipus Iacobus - 02-01-2012

What do you mean by "alternative?" A news site, a blog, a combination? A more hardline blog? English language only?


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - Scriptorium - 02-01-2012

(02-01-2012, 07:21 PM)TrentCath Wrote: ... 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.

We'll see if this bears out in time. All I see in this admonishment is to keep things dignified and civil, with particular respect for Benedict and his office. On the face this seems very Catholic. Maybe you're reading more into this than what is there. Time will tell.

(02-01-2012, 07:21 PM)TrentCath Wrote: What they are is truthful, and truthful is not wrong.

Another bad principle. Truthful is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Sometimes we must keep silent. Detraction is wrong. The virtue of honesty is not alone. It is with other virtues like prudence.

(02-01-2012, 07:21 PM)TrentCath Wrote: 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.

Before an open, truthful, and charitable discussion of the problems, we make a judgement of what is charitable and truthful to speak. Is RC making anymore request than this? Are they actually making a request of readers to participate in purposeful ignorance of the state of the Church? The post from yesterday had a re-link to SSPX's response to the Vatican. Hardly denial. [http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/sspx-rome-econe-theology-professor.html]

(02-01-2012, 07:21 PM)TrentCath Wrote: 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.

Well, yes, you are right. Some people can never be helped, and we need to accept that in those cases. But at least you have things covered well on your end. At least their error will not be confirmed by anything you have said or done. And the bees to honey analogy does not mean "nice", it means "appropriate" or in biblical language, "in due season". Check out Sirach 20.


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - TrentCath - 02-01-2012

(02-01-2012, 08:09 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: We'll see if this bears out in time. All I see in this admonishment is to keep things dignified and civil, with particular respect for Benedict and his office. On the face this seems very Catholic. Maybe you're reading more into this than what is there. Time will tell.

It has already, the past week being a good example. On the face of it, it does seem like a normal admonishment and indeed I read it as such but their comments on it and those of others illuminated the issue. Simply put they have already blocked many comments that were charitable for the mere fact they didn't fit their view.


(02-01-2012, 08:09 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Another bad principle. Truthful is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Sometimes we must keep silent. Detraction is wrong. The virtue of honesty is not alone. It is with other virtues like prudence.

No truthful is always right, one must be charitable in the way that truth is conveyed and yes one must be prudent, for example there was a thread on here with a serious mistake made by the pope, a shocking one, now I have not gone and told xyz people about it simply because it would scandalise them and in the circumstances is unnecessary. However in the case of the blog the facts at issue are already widely known, one cannot therefore be guilty of 'detraction' vis a vis the fact the events spoken of are public and well known.

Frankly though this is all unnecessary you are elucidating principles but not dealing with the concrete facts, namely that the comments at Rorate were not bad nor were they uncharitable (most of the time) nor did detraction come into it. Of course you wouldn't know this as by your own admission you didn't really take part, which of course begs the question as to why you are even commenting?


(02-01-2012, 08:09 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Before an open, truthful, and charitable discussion of the problems, we make a judgement of what is charitable and truthful to speak. Is RC making anymore request than this? Are they actually making a request of readers to participate in purposeful ignorance of the state of the Church? The post from yesterday had a re-link to SSPX's response to the Vatican. Hardly denial. [http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/sspx-rome-econe-theology-professor.html]
Indeed and neither you nor I can presume anything else than that most people on RC had these principles in mind, till it is clearly demonstrated that this is not the case. Again this is what makes it so puzzling their news items repulse the very people they seem so keen to attract via their comment moderation.


(02-01-2012, 08:09 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Well, yes, you are right. Some people can never be helped, and we need to accept that in those cases. But at least you have things covered well on your end. At least their error will not be confirmed by anything you have said or done. And the bees to honey analogy does not mean "nice", it means "appropriate" or in biblical language, "in due season". Check out Sirach 20.

Speaking the truth if one does so charitably and prudently only confirms someone in error if they are obstinate, in which case they are culpable and not you.

However as I said earlier I see no reason to continue this debate by your own admission you know little about the situation and thus are not fit to comment.


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - Scriptorium - 02-01-2012

TrentCath, you said it. I am stating principles, not concrete facts.


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - The Curt Jester - 02-01-2012

I know a person who comments (commented?) on RC frequently, but she's a little irritated at the new policy.  It seems that some of the newer commenters are allowed to make rude remarks about the others, but the old trads get their remarks censored.   Not a good sign for that blog.


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - alphonsusjr - 02-01-2012

(02-01-2012, 08:04 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: What do you mean by "alternative?" A news site, a blog, a combination? A more hardline blog? English language only?

All of this has already been specified, both explicitly and implicitly. This thread is not for those who need to ask such questions.


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - Scotus - 02-02-2012

(02-01-2012, 09:06 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote: I know a person who comments (commented?) on RC frequently, but she's a little irritated at the new policy.  It seems that some of the newer commenters are allowed to make rude remarks about the others, but the old trads get their remarks censored.   Not a good sign for that blog.

I've noticed that recently very few of my comments were getting through. I don't attend an SSPX chapel (or FSSP for that matter) and mostly go to the Novus Ordo. But I found that if I made some criticism of the Pope's words (not of his person, mark you), for example his holding Teilhard de Chardin up as a "model for priests" in 2009, then the comment would disappear into the ether. It's not my blog and, yes, they make up the rules. But those new rules weren't clear up until their recent post. At least matters have been clarified.

Fr Z. is also problematic. I tried to answer some nonsensical criticisms of the SSPX on his blog (BTW, I think that there are many problems with the SSPX but it's simply wrong to describe them as "Protestant" ad nauseam) and found that my comments were 'disappeared'. I'll be honest though as well, I rarely go to FR Z's blog these days (which I did numerous times a day about 4 years ago) because I find the whole "Buy Fr Z. a coffee", "Buy Fr Z. an Apple Mac", "Contribute $10/$20/$50 a month to Fr Z." thing increasingly distasteful. The man's got to make a living but I think his perceived benefactors started to influence the way he blogged.