Alternatives to Rorate Caeli?
#1
For some time now I've been considering abandoning Rorate Caeli as too watered-down. They've now cemented my decision. What have you found to be the best alternatives to it?
Reply
#2
(01-31-2012, 09:28 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: For some time now I've been considering abandoning Rorate Caeli as too watered-down. They've now cemented my decision. What have you found to be the best alternatives to it?

All this nonsense about the comments is getting irritating

I guess you know about epoynmous flower ?
Reply
#3
Jackson, how about doing one of your own? Tailored-fit.
Reply
#4
(01-31-2012, 10:53 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Jackson, how about doing one of your own? Tailored-fit.

Did someone say Taylor Swift??

Reply
#5
(01-31-2012, 09:28 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: For some time now I've been considering abandoning Rorate Caeli as too watered-down. They've now cemented my decision. What have you found to be the best alternatives to it?

What are they watered-down on? (Just curious)
Reply
#6
(01-31-2012, 11:53 PM)Spooky Wrote: What are they watered-down on? (Just curious)

I'm curious too.
Reply
#7
They have asked people to tone down the nastiness in the comments. They expect people to speak as responsibel adults should to others. Hardly an earthquake. It is an excellent site.
Reply
#8
(02-01-2012, 10:59 AM)maldon Wrote: They have asked people to tone down the nastiness in the comments. They expect people to speak as responsibel adults should to others. Hardly an earthquake. It is an excellent site.

Not the whole story i'm afraid, the comments they insist are 'nasty' that is the ones they block are simply those which express opinions more akin to that of the SSPX then the FSSP and are often nothing more than the truth. The site appears to be becoming a lot like Fr Z's where most comments that don't agree with his particular 'agenda' get blocked, I know both of these things from personal experience and the experience of others. Crticisms of the holy fathers, defecnes of the position of the society etc... all done reasonably are now getting blocked, the 'nastiness' was much exaggerated and often came from those who wanted to bash the SSPX as much as those who supported it.
Reply
#9
(02-01-2012, 11:35 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Not the whole story i'm afraid, the comments they insist are 'nasty' that is the ones they block are simply those which express opinions more akin to that of the SSPX then the FSSP and are often nothing more than the truth. The site appears to be becoming a lot like Fr Z's where most comments that don't agree with his particular 'agenda' get blocked, I know both of these things from personal experience and the experience of others. Crticisms of the holy fathers, defecnes of the position of the society etc... all done reasonably are now getting blocked, the 'nastiness' was much exaggerated and often came from those who wanted to bash the SSPX as much as those who supported it.

That's why I said to Jackson to start his own site. It's like people who complain about a business. Well, go put your hard work into something and then we'll talk. I can understand someone putting work into something and hate to see it mucked up by a bunch of armchair theologians, even if they are right on content, but bad at delivery. Is the Faith watered down there? You know, just as much as it isn't an article of Faith to love VII, it isn't an article of Faith to love the SSPX or what they're doing. I think the watering down may be watering down support of Jackson's agenda, or maybe your agenda. The SSPX may well be right, but since when is this even a necessity of being Catholic, or having a Catholic website with integrity? Furthermore, the SSPX should be open-season just as much as the Vatican. If the positions are right, then they will see the light. If they block the light continuously, then all I can say is create your own blog that is well-built and popular, and then we will have somewhere to look. But I thought it was ironic that the statement was, this blog of someone else's work is getting watered down, where is another blog of someone else's work I can go to. Irony.
Reply
#10
(02-01-2012, 12:27 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 11:35 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Not the whole story i'm afraid, the comments they insist are 'nasty' that is the ones they block are simply those which express opinions more akin to that of the SSPX then the FSSP and are often nothing more than the truth. The site appears to be becoming a lot like Fr Z's where most comments that don't agree with his particular 'agenda' get blocked, I know both of these things from personal experience and the experience of others. Crticisms of the holy fathers, defecnes of the position of the society etc... all done reasonably are now getting blocked, the 'nastiness' was much exaggerated and often came from those who wanted to bash the SSPX as much as those who supported it.

That's why I said to Jackson to start his own site. It's like people who complain about a business. Well, go put your hard work into something and then we'll talk. I can understand someone putting work into something and hate to see it mucked up by a bunch of armchair theologians, even if they are right on content, but bad at delivery. Is the Faith watered down there? You know, just as much as it isn't an article of Faith to love VII, it isn't an article of Faith to love the SSPX or what they're doing. I think the watering down may be watering down support of Jackson's agenda, or maybe your agenda. The SSPX may well be right, but since when is this even a necessity of being Catholic, or having a Catholic website with integrity? Furthermore, the SSPX should be open-season just as much as the Vatican. If the positions are right, then they will see the light. If they block the light continuously, then all I can say is create your own blog that is well-built and popular, and then we will have somewhere to look. But I thought it was ironic that the statement was, this blog of someone else's work is getting watered down, where is another blog of someone else's work I can go to. Irony.

This would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that the posts Rorate make support said agenda and attract said types of people therefore they are somewhat shooting themselves in the foot.

And as for armchair theologians, I suspect most theologians spend a lot of their time in their armchairs  LOL But seriously it is more than a little presumptuous of you to disregard all such comments as from 'armchair theologians' and more than a little ignorant to be honest.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)