New Debate Table Rule...

[mp15]

I wasn't debating it with him, I was debating it with you. I'm fine with his answer to me just not with yours. To me it is simple as well. We just disagree as to what makes it simple.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Well I agree with both aspects of the discussion, however, how does it look really to others when its Catholic vs Catholic here? It Looks too much like Protestantism to me. No need to be divided on here..of course this is just my opinion..but I blame DUSt :D

CatholicAndFanatical

[mp15]

Well maybe it's time we all faced the facts:

Not all Catholics see eye to eye

I for one think it ridiculous to pretend that we do. We can however talk about our differences and disagreements so that maybe we will come to a better understanding. Heck it may even change a few people minds. But blocking all conversation isn't gonna bring two differing opinions closer together is it? That's my whole point. Are we adults or are we children. Can we talk our about differences or do we turn a blind eye and pretend they don't exist.

I believe that dUSt is doing the right thing if he wants this board to be for Catholic/non-Catholic debate. I would propose however that he start a board that could be for Catholic/Catholic debate. As long as it's keep civil I don't see where the problem is.

Edited September 24, 2003 by mp15

[dUSt]

I never said anything about speaking out against abuses, be it modernistic or traditional. I'm simply not going to allow debate regarding the interpretation of what the Church teaches. "Catholics for a Free Choice", and groups like that are obviously going against Church teaching. There's no debate there.

mp - I won't be creating a Catholic vs Catholic debate board at phatmass. If that's your cup of tea, then by all means, persue it--just not here. I'm a little discouraged by the fact that some posters are quick to jump into a "traditional vs modern" debate, but rarely post any type of defense when non-Catholics challenge our faith (see the threads involving 'mustbenothing'--where are all the traditionalists?).

Anyway. I made my decision. There will be no Catholic vs Catholic debate at phatmass. It's not something I enjoy, nor participate in. More importantly, I don't feel it benefits the Church.

God bless.

[Anna]

Gee, dUSt, in all honesty, I had some sincere questions regarding the traditionalist vs. contemporary viewpoint.

I thought CMom was doing a fine job answering my questions, and I thought I was beginning to understand what Pope St. Pius had meant....

Now, I'm confused again.

Yes, I know a couple of folks got into heated discussion, but soon after apologized to each other, once they understood what the other meant.

That is how it so often happens on this phorum.

Sorry if I contributed to your decision with my many questions.

I wasn't debating, as I don't really have a stance. I've never even been to a trad Mass!

[VeraMaria]

Eat tacos, so very tasty and good for you,, so very tasty and good for you,.

You're scary, dUST, that's what I just ate for dinner!!! :P

[Thomas Michael]

If debate between Catholics is what you want, I think this forum would suit you well.

http://forums.catholic-convert.com

It's Steve Ray's Defenders of the Catholic Faith website, and its forum is pretty busy and full of traditionalists. It can get pretty harsh in there sometimes with certain subjects, which is why I like to have a place like this where the folks are more in my frame of mind. :D

[morostheos]

dUSt,

even though many other people disagree with your decision, I agree with you! PM Newbie that I am, I was definitely starting to get discouraged by all of the debate about topics that were not central to the faith. Instead of feeling like I belonged, I felt alienated by the large number of people who did not agree with me in matters of personal opinion. I must say I was actually thinking of making a committment not to look at the Debate Board any longer, because it didn't seem to be fostering a Christian attitude towards others opinions in myself. Thank you!

In Christ,

claire

[God Conquers]

Good call dUSt. We really don't need to see those kinds of debates. The teachings of the Church are clear, and you've linked the catechism to this site. Matters of discipline and procedure, although not irrelevent, probably do not have a place here. It especially saddens me to see people bashing Youth movements like Lifeteen etc. for small improprieties, Lifeteen kids probably look for alot of Catholic resources online, and find Phatmass. We don't need to see'em alienated immediately from a place where they stand to learn and grow in their faith.

[marielapin]

I never said anything about speaking out against abuses, be it modernistic or traditional.

There will be no Catholic vs Catholic debate at phatmass.

I'm confused.

If we are speaking out on Church abuses, aren't we still going Catholic vs. Catholic?

I personally think abuses sneaking into the liturgy and teachings are something much more alarming than the blatant anti-Catholic rhetoric that I will never get used to.

I am more wary of the devil trying to get to the Church from within than without.

So are we, or are we not allowed to talk about abuses, abusers, etc.

To me there is no difference in abuses and catholic vs catholic.

You might think I'm nitpicking, but I really am not understanding what you mean. I don't come to the debate room to read Catholic vs Prot or whatever threads.

[Don John of Austria]

Marielapin-- I think he is just saying that he doesn't want arguements about Mass forms and such, I could be wrong But I don't think he is forbiding open discussion of those things which are in conflict with Church teaching, only those things which are nuance interpretation.

Still does this mean we can't debate Church teaching at all--- no more discussion of just war or voteing democrat=excommunication. Of is this forbidance solely regarding liturgical rites?

[God Conquers]

probably. I would think if a Catholic came in saying abortion was ok we could debate him. This pertains probably to the disputes over the "novus ordo" mass, and latin use and stuff like that.

[Donna]

Dust,

You've been very indulgent with me. I thank you, once again.

Dust,

I somehow think this New Rule will be hard to enforce. Esp. if one

naturally thinks (and therefore speaks) in a 'traditional' way.

Dust,

it is your board; you the poppa.

Dust,

I somehow think you're being dishonest.

[Donna]

Congratulations, dUSt: since reading this thread, and the three extra pages of the 'Quo Primum' thread, and the fact that you locked it, I literally cannot sleep.

I was absent from that topic for a few days.

Your sig says take the Bible and Tradition and spread what you learned around the world. That's what Trent and other ages of our Holy Mother the Church did; and this is the only ingredient evicted from the cauldron of diversity stew.

I started out as most converts these days do; taking in C.S. Lewis, Scott Hahn, EWTN, RCIA. And I was lucky to be brought in in a conservative parish. But the priest couldn't answer that one innocent question I had about ICEL having its authority to mistranslate. I guess he could've kept repeating "they just do".

The truth is beginning to come out on this, w/ the former ICEL board member (a priest) renouncing his service with them. And revealing their penchant for disdaining Tradition in translation. But does EWTN announce this? Maybe they do, I hope so. I only saw the suspect Trads report on it.

The truth will come out in time with other things as well.

You want your debate table for apologia for the Faith which is laudable.

You will not have a place on the phorum for Tradition vs. Modernism, because you don't see this dialogue benefitting the Church. (Do you really mean 'Modernism'? because that is a condemned "synthesis of all hersey". Maybe you mean "concilliar").

It will happen that a " Mulls" or someone else will have a no-no question. And they'll probably get a no-no- answer.

I'm not laying a guilt trip, but telling you the truth: the failure to discuss these things by Catholics throws honest, legitimate questioners into the arms of those who will. It seems the only ones willing to discuss these things are for the most part what you would label schismatic. Um, not so fast if you're thinking such people deserve to be thrown there, you might be there yourself someday... with a central issue gone unsettled, because in order to answer it the truth would have to be told that the theologians have yet to "reveal clearly", as Pope John Paul II said, the harmony between Tradition and Vatican II (in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta).

Now, because I've been asking these things a long time, I guess, that makes me tainted. But once I was as innocent as Anna. And that's why I reckon you locked the thread when you did. It's not legitimate when an old sow like me shoots the gun, but when an honest lamb sings her song, that is too much.

You asked in another thread why people are leaving Phatmass. My opinion is that, even if absent for "business reasons", the Hypers and Likos', and Don John and Kilroy and Anna all have one thing in common: they are militant about truth being fixed, and they all have a sensum fideii - meaning they don't (and maybe can't) disparage or flip off Tradition, but revere it. And live it.

And long for it.

Some people say this is being "overly attached". No one can ever be too attached to the expression of the Faith which pleased Heaven then and still does. Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. (Hebrews).

And ditto for marieplan who comes not often, and seems to have trouble here thrown at her when she does.

And it's this phorum's great loss.

I see the "dialogue" you henceforth forbid as more crucial than even apologetics with Protestants and what-not. If Catholics are not coherent within themselves as Catholics, forget the rest.

And we're not coherent, are we? Not totally; and on important things. This phorum is just a mirror of the state of things today in Catholicism.

You can dismiss my opinion, but not an Anna, a Kilroy, a Hyper, a Likos. And maybe not an Mp 15.

Peace.

You're in my St. Michael novena.

[jasJis]

The point is whether your vision for what Phatmass is, or should be may be different from dUSt's. It's great if marialapin doesn't think that she wants to read Protestant vs Catholic debate here. It's just as great if others come here to debate Protestant vs Catholic doctrine.

We are to be all things to all men. Trad vs Modernist or concilliar discussion is necessary, good, and vital to the Church. All debate within the Church Faithful is good if the differing sides have the common goal to keep the Church faithful to the Faith that has been handed down and preserved through Tradition, Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Church.

But given the general audience of the people here, it's like discussing professors debating high-level quantum physics in a classroom of 8th graders. Some will follow the general idea, but most lack the depth of knowledge to understand and benefit and will misunderstand most of the discussion.

It's been repeatedly been pointed out that his decision is based on who dUSt feels is the audience of this board. He hasn't said the debate isn't vaild, but just not valid for the majority of the board participants and would likely be damaging to many who visit here.

There's plenty of other boards where the audience can benefit from that debate. CMom was just soliciting participants to another board she is running. Give her a jingle.

Unless of course, the dishonesty you accuse dUSt of having is really you not willing to give up the bully pulpit you've enjoyed here so far.