Changes - Amended!

[Su]

I mean ban sedes (with a few exceptions that I can think of off the top of my head). Even if sedevacantism isn't spoken of outright, the attitude toward the Holy Father comes out and leads to ugly fights. Catholics shouldn't have to urge other Catholics to give their Holy FATHER the benefit of the doubt, to not go looking for him to fail (practically clapping their hands in glee when they perceive that he does), etc. on a Catholic forum. It's getting old.

I am not sure if sedes, as in known to actually be sedes of some sort, are the problem. I have seen people attacked for failing to attack the Pope or the Novus Ordo with sufficient vigor. Some are not sedes, some are known to be sedes, but as a whole, it seems to be an attitude of doubting the Catholicity of anyone unless they have passed the vitriol test.

That was actually the motivation for writing the blog post on The Saints. I used Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Marie-Bernarde Soubirous as the examples because they are the epitomes of ideal saints in some fashion, but I have a feeling that they would not be welcome by many here.

[tmw89]

Rosarium read into my post something which was not there.  I pointed out a common factor in posters who accumulated negative Fishies, but in my post did not judge whether or not those posters were correct in their defenses.  In other words:

You seem to me to have called their giving respect and the benefit of the doubt to the Pope and believing that if there is no traditional Mass around, a Catholic should consider going to the Novus Ordo Mass to fulfill the Sunday Obligation "neo-cath ideology" (see post). You might disagree, and lots of good Catholics might disagree (with the latter, that is), but it's not "neo-Catholic" to believe that a valid Mass should be attended, even if it's the watered-down, banal N.O. Mass, if that's all there is. As to the former, non-sedevacantists damn well should give Benedict XVI the benefit of the doubt and show some respect. But too many around here don't.

So far as I had been able to deduce from different threads on the forum about the ideology associated with the term "neo-cath," its tenets include general defense of JP2 and theological defense of the NO.  I did not think the term pejorative, only descriptive.

Genuine question about forum procedure:  Is debate RE the validity of the NO now off-limits on Fish Eaters?

[Someone1776]

I mean ban sedes (with a few exceptions that I can think of off the top of my head). Even if sedevacantism isn't spoken of outright, the attitude toward the Holy Father comes out and leads to ugly fights. Catholics shouldn't have to urge other Catholics to give their Holy FATHER the benefit of the doubt, to not go looking for him to fail (practically clapping their hands in glee when they perceive that he does), etc. on a Catholic forum. It's getting old.

I would urge you not to do that. It seems silly to allow Protestants, Atheists, and Orthodox to post here, but not allow sedes.  A better enforcement of respect toward the Holy Father would remove much of what you don't like seeing.  But, it's not just sedes who have the attitude you outline.  I would say they aren't even a majority of the people with that attitude here.  Most people here have come to the conclusion that the Pope has embraced heresy or error to some degree.  While most still think he's the Pope, most also think we really shouldn't pay attention to him .  It's seems to me that it is the people who think the Pope is still Pope, but a heretic that have the most vitriol toward him.  It's as if they have to justify to themselves that the course of action they have taken is right.  Sedes generally seem more sure of themselves and less concerned with proving to themselves that they are right.  I was on another forum where the makeup oddly was about 50% NO attenders and 50% sede.  There wasn't that much acrimony since people knew where each other stood. Somehow it's easier to disagree with someone over religion when you are aware there ARE huge differences between your views. I think the real pain comes between the people who admit Benedict is the Pope.  I have never attended a sede or SSPX chapel, but I would be willing to bet that SSPX priests spend more time warning their congregants not to attend the NO or diocesan TLMs than sede priests.  Sedes don't really need to be reminded not to attend the NO or EF masses. 

I think the lack of respect for the Pope here is not good, but I think singling out sedes for this problem is just making them an easy scapegoat.  If you really wanted to ban everyone with the attitude you outlined you would probobly have to ban all sede, SSPX, and a good chunk of FSSP/ICK/EF Catholics here.  And, that would make this forum about as interesting as Catholic Answers. 

I'd also note that some of the posters most interested in non-Catholic topics that you find repugnant don't seem to have much concern about theological matters. 

So far as I had been able to deduce from different threads on the forum about the ideology associated with the term "neo-cath," its tenets include general defense of JP2 and theological defense of the NO.  I did not think the term pejorative, only descriptive.

Neo-Catholic means you belong to the "new religion."  You aren't Catholic if you are a Neo-Catholic. Many people use Neo-Catholic just to mean "liberal Catholic," but the term really means you are an adherent of a false religion led by Benedict XVI. 

[NOtard]

Catholics shouldn't have to urge other Catholics to give their Holy FATHER the benefit of the doubt, to not go looking for him to fail (practically clapping their hands in glee when they perceive that he does), etc. on a Catholic forum. It's getting old.

Well, if you got rid of the posts about how the Pope isn't really the Pope, or maybe he's the Pope but the rest of the visible Catholic Church isn't the real Catholic Church, and the posts about how Christ sacrificed in the Novus Ordo Mass is the sacrifice of Satan, or maybe He isn't really sacrificed even when the Novus Ordo Mass is said by a validly ordained priest with valid intention, valid form and valid matter, etc., then it would certainly make this forum feel less hostile.  I can imagine that a few former posters who have left might even come back. 

On the other hand, for many people, those are, in fact, the central tenets of Traditional Catholicism (tm) as they see it (as opposed to traditional Catholicism), and you might lose a large number of your current posters.

The posters in this forum are a self-selected group.  Those who don't like the atmosphere end up leaving, so you end up with a majority of people who like the tone here, or at least are willing to tolerate it.  To some extent, after one has been here a while, one learns which posters usually write things that are worthwhile reading (Saint Sebastian springs to mind as an example), and which ones do not.  But this only comes after one has become familiar with the different posters.

How the forum appears to the new people who stumble upon it is a different question, and I'm not sure if there's any way to gauge what their reactions are.  Many of them may look in here once, get disgusted, and leave without having posted anything.  Or maybe I'm wrong -- there's no way to tell.

The main site, however, is wonderful, and the blog section is also pretty good.  I think everybody agrees that those sections should be kept, no matter what happens to the forum.

[NOtard]

Oops, sorry, I think I posted my above reply to the wrong thread.

[Habitual_Ritual]

You accused JayneK of "dubious words and apostate activities" without so much as an effort to give any evidence for such a claim.

Dude,I accused no one person of anything.I was making a general stab at the kind of positions some posters get called out for. What are you smoking man!?

[Su]

You accused JayneK of "dubious words and apostate activities" without so much as an effort to give any evidence for such a claim.

Dude,I accused no one person of anything.I was making a general stab at the kind of positions some posters round get called out for. What are you smoking man!?

Read the series of posts related to this and you'll see that your response was directly an answer to a question I wrote about three specific individuals.

You should be more careful about how you write, especially in regards to such accusations.

And the next time you decide to answer a question directed at another, you may want to think twice.

[JayneK]

I mean ban sedes (with a few exceptions that I can think of off the top of my head). Even if sedevacantism isn't spoken of outright, the attitude toward the Holy Father comes out and leads to ugly fights. Catholics shouldn't have to urge other Catholics to give their Holy FATHER the benefit of the doubt, to not go looking for him to fail (practically clapping their hands in glee when they perceive that he does), etc. on a Catholic forum. It's getting old.

I would urge you not to do that. It seems silly to allow Protestants, Atheists, and Orthodox to post here, but not allow sedes.  A better enforcement of respect toward the Holy Father would remove much of what you don't like seeing.  But, it's not just sedes who have the attitude you outline.  I would say they aren't even a majority of the people with that attitude here.  Most people here have come to the conclusion that the Pope has embraced heresy or error to some degree.  While most still think he's the Pope, most also think we really shouldn't pay attention to him .  It's seems to me that it is the people who think the Pope is still Pope, but a heretic that have the most vitriol toward him.  It's as if they have to justify to themselves that the course of action they have taken is right.  Sedes generally seem more sure of themselves and less concerned with proving to themselves that they are right.  I was on another forum where the makeup oddly was about 50% NO attenders and 50% sede.  There wasn't that much acrimony since people knew where each other stood. Somehow it's easier to disagree with someone over religion when you are aware there ARE huge differences between your views. I think the real pain comes between the people who admit Benedict is the Pope.  I have never attended a sede or SSPX chapel, but I would be willing to bet that SSPX priests spend more time warning their congregants not to attend the NO or diocesan TLMs than sede priests.  Sedes don't really need to be reminded not to attend the NO or EF masses. 

I think the lack of respect for the Pope here is not good, but I think singling out sedes for this problem is just making them an easy scapegoat.  If you really wanted to ban everyone with the attitude you outlined you would probobly have to ban all sede, SSPX, and a good chunk of FSSP/ICK/EF Catholics here.  And, that would make this forum about as interesting as Catholic Answers. 

I'd also note that some of the posters most interested in non-Catholic topics that you find repugnant don't seem to have much concern about theological matters. 

I agree with this assessment.

Also, I want this thread to show up in "See new replies to your posts." 

[Habitual_Ritual]

You accused JayneK of "dubious words and apostate activities" without so much as an effort to give any evidence for such a claim.

Dude,I accused no one person of anything.I was making a general stab at the kind of positions some posters round get called out for. What are you smoking man!?

Read the series of posts related to this and you'll see that your response was directly an answer to a question I wrote about three specific individuals.

You should be more careful about how you write, especially in regards to such accusations.

And the next time you decide to answer a question directed at another, you may want to think twice.

And further more, and to be pedantic, if indeed I was leveling accusations your claim that "You accused JayneK of "dubious words and apostate activities" [/u]. would be a fundamental misunderstanding,in terms of  English comprehension and logic because I would in fact have been accusing Jaynek of defending "dubious words and apostate activities" and not actually making them herself.  *sheesh*   

[JayneK]

And further more, and to be pedantic, if indeed I was leveling accusations your claim that "You accused JayneK of "dubious words and apostate activities" [/u]. would be a fundamental misunderstanding,in terms of  English comprehension and logic because I would in fact have been accusing Jaynek of defending "dubious words and apostate activities" and not actually making them herself.  *sheesh*   

You are not being pedantic, just wrong:

Defended them against what?

Against their own dubious words and apostate activities would be my guess...