Fr. Z poll
#41
(09-26-2010, 12:36 PM)Cetil Wrote: If anyone's still following the poll we are at 85% for celibacy.  :) I hope it stays that way.
Once again the media seem to think the cure for homosexuals and pedophiles is to let them marry.  ???

C.

Mark Shea in his site does this really funny thing. Whenever somebody has been accused of child molestation and they may be a teacher or a nurse or a doctor he titles the story...

If only "teachers" could get married, or if only "doctors" could get married and subsequently like that.
Reply
#42
The Church is Christ the King Sarasota Fla. and the priest is Fr. Fryar FSSP.  I also would like to say many but not all of you here need to take a Catholic chill pill. The incessant infighting is dividing the Church more and more. I have begun to worry that some here when the SSPX takes jurisdiction will not go along, and find another excuse to stay separated. This constant dredging the depths to find anything whatsoever to place on these boards to incite every one ire is the work of agent provocateurs.

The treatment of Glgas and Credo are emblematic of these provocateurs activities here. Credo asks questions in a sort of Jesuitical no holds barred way, and he is vilified as a Mohammedan and or a conspiracy tin foil hat nut. When Glgas points to alternate argument then he is a modernist liberal. There are several others here who are on their way to be decried as less than Catholic, by the provocateurs.

I have begun to see that the arguments against these and others are not consistent. The provocateurs use anything they can to beat them down with out regard for consistency. Yet no one calls them out for provoking scandal. The applause choir comes out and like a greek chorus on cue sing their parts in unison.

I've known Laszlo about as long as I have been here. I use his Divinum Officium because I don't have a Breviary and his is way good in it's layout and ease to recite aloud. I am grateful to him for it. In an effort at full disclosure I have helped Laszlo on the web site since I went there. I have pointed out to him mis-scans, mis-spellings, and have searched the net for English translations for the certain texts, proofed Benedict's Regula in English and Latin, and proof read all of the different Masses he has at his sight. This is just to let you know how far back we go. I am the amateur and he is the professional.

Anathema sit ? Heretic ? Modernist ? Schismatic ? We should all think about it before leveling these against our brothers, it may end up biting us in the ass, when Christ demands an accounting.
tim





Reply
#43
How can we not?

If Gigas states that the nature of God can be anything. While the Church says different that the nature of God has been revealed to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, how can I not call him a heretic? or at the very least some of his believes as heretical?

If Credo has a signature that is posted every time he makes a comment in which the koran is praised as the greatest work of God written in the most beautiful form of Arabic ever known. Praise a religion that has destroyed large amounts of Christian lands and culture. A religion that denies the incarnation and omnipresence of God. He defends islam at every turn as if it were equal to Scripture, to the Magisterium.

Credo would not even call the Pope, Holy Father.

No I do not think I am being reactionary if anything we are being Christians we are telling them they are wrong out of true Love as our Brothers in Christ. If I lie my Mother would call me a liar she would not hide behind niceness to tell me how it is, why? Because she "loves" me. So we must out of LOVE remind our brothers that they are following a path to perdition.
Reply
#44
I never said you were reactionary. I think you presume too much. How do you know their intentions ? This has been lost since Vatican II, and I know because I was asked to clarify not long ago here by one of the more measured and knowledgeable. It is the phrase in the objective, and it means all we can judge by is what is known through the 5 senses. We as Catholics used to always say I judge this in the objective. It means without knowledge of intent or condition of the soul or heart or mind as God only knows and we do not. It appears to me everyone here can see through the screen and into the soul to judge the state of their sins.
Bull shit !
tim
Reply
#45
(09-26-2010, 10:36 AM)Revixit Wrote:
(09-26-2010, 10:07 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: And yet he is, in my opinion, a persistent and apparently unteachable material heretic.

an opinion is like a belly button -- everybody's got one.

And they all collect lint?
Reply
#46
(09-26-2010, 02:50 PM)timoose Wrote: I never said you were reactionary. I think you presume too much. How do you know their intentions ? This has been lost since Vatican II, and I know because I was asked to clarify not long ago here by one of the more measured and knowledgeable. It is the phrase in the objective, and it means all we can judge by is what is known through the 5 senses. We as Catholics used to always say I judge this in the objective. It means without knowledge of intent or condition of the soul or heart or mind as God only knows and we do not. It appears to me everyone here can see through the screen and into the soul to judge the state of their sins.
Bull shit !
tim

I have to agree with Timoose on this one. I had a very traditional instructor in Catholic doctrine and he always said when you see someone do something that is objectively sinful then we can say objectively that person has sinned. What we can never do is judge their degree of subjective guilt in the eyes of God because only God can know that.

C.
Reply
#47
Yes, when you lack the mental bandwidth to actually make a legitimate point, you can always break the forum rules and resort to using profanity and making personal insults.
Reply
#48
(09-26-2010, 03:13 PM)Cetil Wrote:
(09-26-2010, 02:50 PM)timoose Wrote: I never said you were reactionary. I think you presume too much. How do you know their intentions ? This has been lost since Vatican II, and I know because I was asked to clarify not long ago here by one of the more measured and knowledgeable. It is the phrase in the objective, and it means all we can judge by is what is known through the 5 senses. We as Catholics used to always say I judge this in the objective. It means without knowledge of intent or condition of the soul or heart or mind as God only knows and we do not. It appears to me everyone here can see through the screen and into the soul to judge the state of their sins.
Bull shit !
tim

I have to agree with Timoose on this one. I had a very traditional instructor in Catholic doctrine and he always said when you see someone do something that is objectively sinful then we can say objectively that person has sinned. What we can never do is judge their degree of subjective guilt in the eyes of God because only God can know that.

C.

Not really, every time one of the miscreants is rightly shown the err of their ways, like any pertinacious heretic, they change the subject, start a new thread and ignore the point that was made, either disinterested in just fraternal correction or like a dog going back to his vomit.  In either case, they should be checked, and all this other stuff is just bad-will, adulation and croneyism.
Reply
#49
(09-25-2010, 02:32 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(09-25-2010, 02:11 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(09-25-2010, 01:45 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(09-25-2010, 04:00 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(09-25-2010, 03:19 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(09-24-2010, 11:35 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(09-24-2010, 11:28 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(09-24-2010, 11:04 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(09-24-2010, 11:02 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(09-24-2010, 10:07 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(09-24-2010, 09:36 PM)glgas Wrote: Is your problem that he keeps the Ember day, or that he keeps is according to the 1960 runrics?

Shadap you tinkling cymbal.

Have some respect.

You too.

???

he comes in here all the time and makes these  condescending remarks; he's almost as persistent about it as you.  It's getting pretty old.  It's not like he actually read the post or anything, or even really knew what the post was about, he just thought he'd try to mischaracterize the Traditional position by a lame attempt at trivialization with his comment.

Seriously, can't libs get better plants than Hungarian Gulasch and some of the others I won't mention...

Look, even if we disagree with glgas, he's an old man that lived through communism and has remained faithful to the Church through out all of this. That's definitely more than I can say and because of that he deserves my respect.

Are you any different?

What S_M said! 

Also, how do you know he didn't read the post.   It's clear by the original posting that Peter didn't read Fr. Z's original post, yet it was ok for him to bitch about it, and for him to go so far as to call a Catholic priest NOT A CATHOLIC.  Yet Peter gets no reprimand.

And regardless, like S_M said, glgas has lived through communism, and is a clear supporter of traditionalism.  Next to Credo, he's probably one of the better authorities on the breviary, new or old, and yet these two are the recipients of the fiercest polemics.  They might occasionally bring it upon themselves, but surely their other actions warrant praise.  Hell, have you tried programming anything NEAR the complexity and breadth that glgas has?  I sorely doubt it.  He's got the breviary in 7 different revisions, and he recently has been adding the texts of the Mass (and its propers and such) to his website, and he finances it, as far as I can tell, on his own dime.  Do you know how many souls he's brought closer to God via this work? 

But, y'know what, it's better to bitch and yell and complain at him about what he posts, because it's ok, and you're so much smarter than he is.  Dick.

All of that is irrelevant.  Ill-behaved old men were ill-behaved young men too.  Old age is no excuse for bad behavior, and Goulasch has been warned before about his usual negativity toward trads, and this post, where he jumps on imaginary trads for imaginary crimes, is pretty insulting and mean-spirited, not only that, he obviously didn't bother to read the post and see that Peter had apologized for accusing Father Z of something he didn't do.

Seems to me that 90% of your posts, at least the ones I've seen, are related to negativity.  You yourself even spent quite a few posts trashing Father Z yourself without any substantiation.  I recall asking you for some back-up, and you slithered away. 

Simpering git.

Where did I trash Fr. Z?  Up until the past month or so I've enjoyed his blog (the constant bird-stuff, and the Mystic Monk advertising is annoying, now, though). 

Oh, I apologize, it wasn't you after all, but one of the other adolescents on the forum.

I'm not an adolescent, by the way. 

n.
A young person who has undergone puberty but who has not reached full maturity; a teenager.
Reply
#50
(09-26-2010, 03:58 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(09-25-2010, 02:32 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Oh, I apologize, it wasn't you after all, but one of the other adolescents on the forum.

I'm not an adolescent, by the way. 

n.
A young person who has undergone puberty but who has not reached full maturity; a teenager.

Save your font, CollegeCatholic.  Baker can't hear you up there on his high horse.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)