Fisheaters.com

[Socrates]

[quote name='VoxClamantis' post='978871' date='May 11 2006, 06:35 PM']
Socrates, you must not have read many of John Paul II's writings if you fail to see the humor in that. He famously used too many words and certain phrases. Don't lose your sense of humor, man.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the humor in mocking a recently deceased Holy Father.

Is there anything at all on that site treating Pope John Paul II (or Pope Benedict XVI) with respect and love?
I'll admit, my experiences with Fisheaters are limited, but what I've seen there is mostly slander, calumny, and uncharity. There was nothing to make me wish to return to that site.
(And I have "traditionalist" leanings myself in certain areas - so don't just dismiss me as a modernist "Neo-Con" (whatever that might mean).)

And I can only imagine the howls of outrage that would arise from the "fisheater" crowd if Phatmass had a similar "humor" page mocking someone beloved of the "Rad-Trad" set.

(How about "insight from Lefebre": "Jewish Perfidy no salvation of False Ecumenism Talmudic NeoCon"?)

[VoxClamantis]

[quote name='Socrates' post='978871' date='May 11 2006, 06:35 PM'] I'm sorry, but I fail to see the humor in mocking a recently deceased Holy Father.[/quote]

1) it isn't mockery. It's the same sort of ribbing and joking I'd give to my natural father. But then, I'm Italian and we tend to laugh a lot.

2) The Holy Father wasn't dead when the page went up

[quote]Is there anything at all on that site treating Pope John Paul II (or Pope Benedict XVI) with respect and love?[/quote]

There isn't much there treating Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI one way or another aside from a few articles in the "For Catholics" section, none of which are disrespectful.

[quote]I'll admit, my experiences with Fisheaters are limited, but what I've seen there is mostly slander, calumny, and uncharity. There was nothing to make me wish to return to that site.
(And I have "traditionalist" leanings myself in certain areas - so don't just dismiss me as a modernist "Neo-Con" (whatever that might mean).)[/quote]

Don't know where you could have seen something like that at the site, though at the discussion forum, people of all types show up, including people I disagree with.

[quote]And I can only imagine the howls of outrage that would arise from the "fisheater" crowd if Phatmass had a similar "humor" page mocking someone beloved of the "Rad-Trad" set.[/quote]

The very use of the term "rad trad" is something we're used to, if you catch my drift. Same with "the fisheater crowd" and the like.

[quote](How about "insight from Lefebre": "Jewish Perfidy no salvation of False Ecumenism Talmudic NeoCon"?)[/quote]

Since the site isn't an S.S.P.X. site, it isn't relevant. There are people who attend S.S.P.X. Masses at [i]the discussion forum,[/i] just as there are those, like me, who attend Masses offered by the F.S.S.P., or by the I.C.K, etc., and there are also sedevacantists. All trads of all types are welcome at the forum, and there is one -- and only one -- sub-forum where these different types of trads can debate about their differences. The rest of the forum is for discussion of what we all have in common.

The [i]site itself[/i], though, is "pan-trad" and is so "radical" that even Latin Mass Magazine links to it from their site. Parish churches link to it. Don't make the mistake of confusing opinions you might see from some people at the forum with [i]the site itself[/i], which anyone who worships according to the 1962 Missal should find helpful.

[KnightofChrist]

These are some of the things that are wrong with Fisheaters.com... and why Real Catholic shouldnt go to that site...

source: www.catholicculture.org
[quote]"The site as a whole implicitly and explicitly rejects the Novus Ordo Mass. "

The section on the Mass entitled "The Mass I: Introduction" states:

In this section, I focus solely on the traditional Latin Mass based on the Missal of 1962 which is used by the S.S.P.X. and by the F.S.S.P. After much study, I've come to the conclusion that, validity issues aside, the "Novus Ordo Mass" is inherently, tragically flawed, something my instincts and "common sense" have told me since I was a child. The very name of this Mass -- "Novus Ordo," i.e., "New Order" -- should make anyone with a true Catholic nature cringe, and its effects are so incredibly sad it almost hurts to think about it. It has turned out to be a "New Mass" for a "New Religion" -- and that religion ain't Catholic."

In another place, the webmaster declares,

"We must stop supporting the that which reeks of "the spirit of Vatican II," i.e., modernism -- the heterodox seminaries, the "Novus Ordo masses," . . . We must support only the true Catholic Faith -- the Faith of the Fathers -- with its traditional Latin Mass, traditional Sacraments, and traditional teaching." (The Church as Battered Bride)

Notice that "Novus Ordo masses" is placed in quotation marks, implying that the New Mass is a Mass in name only. There are many other articles and links, especially in the section "For Catholics," that support this position.
Examples include:

* A Brief Defense of Traditionalism
* Conservative -vs- Traditional Catholicism
* Links to The New Mass I: Inalienable Right or Inferior Rite? and The New Mass II: Our Faith in Hymn at Catholic Apologetics International
* Links to material from the Society of St. Pius X [/quote]

[quote]"All of the material and resources offered are pre-Vatican II."

A telling example of this is in the section dedicated to the writings of the Popes. Though most of the major encyclicals pre-1963 are included, not a single document since the Council is included. The same is true of other resources. The only exception to this is the documents of the Council itself. [/quote]

[quote]"A "Dictionary of Dissent""

This "dictionary" is filled with sarcasitic remarks about the New Mass, current Church terminology, and the post-Conciliar Church. The overall effect is one of encouraging Catholics to disregard the authority of the Church on these issues.

Here are a few examples:

* "A is Not A" and "2+2=5" -- the kind of liberal or neo-conservative logic it takes to reconcile, for ex.: Mortalium Animos with the Assisi Events; Quo Primum and Mediator Dei with the Novus Ordo Mass; Mirari Vos with the entire Vatican II experiment and idea that the Church requires "renewal"; Testem Benevolentiae Nostra and Quas Primas with the post-conciliar view of government; Unam Sanctam with post-conciliar false ecumenism; and so forth.
* Antisemite -- someone Jews hate. It could be someone who doesn't like Zionism or American funding of Israel. Or it could be someone who knows what the Talmud says. Whatever it is, whoever gets the label is expected to act guilty and apologize profusely lest his career, reputation, and any realistic hopes of fulfilling political ambition be destroyed.
* Conscience -- . . . Traditional Catholic:
"My informed conscience and years of study tell me that what's been going on in the Church since Vatican II is evil."
* Man -- the new god. This concept is a result of a refocus from theology to anthropological philosophy. The new trend in "Vatican thinking" starts with man himself instead of starting with the God of revelation. It glosses over the reality of original sin and assumes that if man just gazes at himself long enough, he will then seek out God (Who may be found in any religion, but only "most fully" in the neo-Catholic religion).
* There are also attacks on terms such as Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Eucharist, priests who wished to be called by their given names, and much more.[/quote]

[quote]"Unorthodox Catholic links"

Here are just a few examples:

* Catholic Apologetics International
* Diocese Report
* Una Voce
* The Remnant
* Chistian Order
* Christus Rex
* Society of St. Pius X [/quote]

[dUSt]

Fisheaters should be visited with the same caution one would have if they were visiting a [b]Protest[/b]ant site... because that is basically the theme of the website, they are [b]protest[/b]ing anything after Vatican II.

It does have some good apologetical resources, just like some Protestant websites have some great apologetical resources to combat athiesm, etc. You just have to be careful to always stay true to the church and the magisterium, and not some idea, philosophy or movement.

[VoxClamantis]

KnightofChrist, we have every right to be critical of the Novus Ordo Missae. We don't have to like it, we can criticize it (as does His Holiness Benedict XVI), and we can resolve to attend traditional Masses.

Catholicculture.org says:

[quote]"Notice that "Novus Ordo masses" is placed in quotation marks, implying that the New Mass is a Mass in name only. There are many other articles and links, especially in the section "For Catholics," that support this position."[/quote]

-- but that is their leap in logic, not mine. Nowhere at FEW will one see the idea that the N.O. Mass is invalid.

Dust, no, the site doesn't protest "anything after Vatican II." The Being Catholic section does defend the traditional Mass as contrasted with the Novus Ordo Missae, does defend the old cycle of readings and liturgical calendar as contrasted with the new, and does say that it is unwise for Pope John Paul II to have added Mysteries to the Rosaries, even if it was presented as a mere option. The "For Catholics" section talks a lot about what we all know has happened to the human element of the Church since the Council. One either acknowledges and talks about problems so they get fixed, or lives in denial as souls are lost. Just last night I read this from a (non-trad) website:

[quote]I attended a Catholic high school and it's my firm belief that they did their best to destroy Catholicism, albeit inadvertently. They were so busy trying to *prove* everything through science, to rationalize it all for those who are ensconced in a world where such qualities are admirable, that they rationalized the mystical aspect of Catholicism away, leaving us with a framework of now meaningless rituals and beliefs. Oh, we knew *why* such things were believed but they were old, antiquated or illogical and could expound for hours on why. Unfortunately, this was cloaked in the framework of a Catholic education so many of us believed this is what the Church taught, or would teach once we had a modern pope. When people began to realize they wanted something more out of their beliefs, they had been taught to think that no such thing existed in Catholicism. They, therefore, looked elsewhere for the spiritual aspect they craved. Many found it in the neo-pagan movement or in eastern religions. These religions so emphasized the individual and self-empowerment that many former Catholics could easily either adapt these teachings into their current lifestyle or drop Catholicism all together in favor of this newly discovered belief system. The modern Catholic writers, in an attempt to stave off the mass flight of the faithful, have made the mistake of trying to make Catholicism a feel-good, down to earth religion, the "Chicken Soup" variety of Catholic spirituality, with all the imagery that goes with it (angels as cherubic infants or beautiful winged women, the WWJD bracelets, etc.), totally ignoring the rich history and teachings already available to them.

Now, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I'm well aware that Catholicism isn't everyone's cuppa tea. I'm simply explaining what I've seen happen in my life. I was one of the masses of Catholics who, once they hit college tried to maintain my faith life. I first ran into the Charasmatic movement, the Chicken Soup variety, which thoroughly disturbed me and my strict German sensibilites. However, I could not find another alternative, and went "What's the point?"and stopped going to mass. Then something interesting happened. I was introduced to my friend's roommates, both of whom were wiccan (or "recovering" Catholics). And, in the face of engaging in religious debate with them (a favorite past time in that household), I started reading up on paganism and wicca. I had zero intention of converting but I wanted to at least be knowledgeable as to what their point of view was. So I started reading and asking them questions: Why did you convert? What was it about wicca that drew you? etc. And their answers are summed up in the above paragraph. [/quote]

Anyone wanting Mystery, beauty, ritual, rich symbolism, art, a profound sense of time, a sense of History and of connectedness with our ancestors, and all the other stuff that pulls people out of the Church and into paganism should look toward traditional Catholicism -- which isn't to say, of course, that traditional Catholicism is paganism. It's just that traditional Catholicism is aware enough of Truth and of human nature to know what people crave and need.

There [i]are [/i] the "Jansenist-esque" types out there in trad-land. Pray for them. But don't confuse them with traditional Catholicism itself.

[ReinnieR]

it would be cool if your phatmass username is fisheater

[dUSt]

The fact that you seperate "traditional Catholicism" with "Catholicism" illustrates the natural dividing aspect of your website.

[VoxClamantis]

[quote name='dUSt' post='979428' date='May 12 2006, 01:53 PM']
The fact that you seperate "traditional Catholicism" with "Catholicism" illustrates the natural dividing aspect of your website.
[/quote]

But there [i]is [/i] a divide. There are those who worship acc. to the 1962 Missal/calender (or older) and who see the post-Conciliar changes in those things as (at the least) unwise, and those who don't. There are those who have serious problems with (at least) the typical interpretations of Vatican II's documents, and those who don't. They're different groups, hence the adjective before the "Catholicism."

[qfnol31]

[quote name='dUSt' post='979428' date='May 12 2006, 02:53 PM'] The fact that you seperate "traditional Catholicism" with "Catholicism" illustrates the natural dividing aspect of your website. [/quote]

Oddly enough I find that just as many people do it the other way around.


Very little of either group will see the similarities at all.


[quote name='VoxClamantis' post='979363' date='May 12 2006, 02:07 PM']Just last night I read this from a (non-trad) website:[/quote]

Yeah, they like U2 too.

[quote]There [i]are [/i] the "Jansenist-esque" types out there in trad-land. Pray for them. But don't confuse them with traditional Catholicism itself. [/quote]

Sadly I find way too much of this and Feeneyism in many circles.

Then again, I find so much in the other too.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='brendan1104' post='965417' date='Apr 29 2006, 03:31 PM']
Its fruits are varied. They have alot of great stuff, but their membership is varied- indult, SSPX, indpendent, sedevacantist, etc. So alot of it you have to disregard or discern with...
[/quote]

Ditto as far as the discussion board goes. The main site has a lot of awesome Catholic information though. One of my favorite sources of information on different things.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='967682' date='May 1 2006, 06:59 PM']
OMGOSH! It a CATHOLIC website, not a heretcial website. The webstie itself is fine, but stay clear of the Sede v. SSPX v. Indult Debate Forum on the board
[/quote]
hehe.... that's my favorite place there... :


[quote name='VoxClamantis' post='979085' date='May 12 2006, 01:01 AM']The [i]site itself[/i], though, is "pan-trad" and is so "radical" that even Latin Mass Magazine links to it from their site. Parish churches link to it. Don't make the mistake of confusing opinions you might see from some people at the forum with [i]the site itself[/i], which anyone who worships according to the 1962 Missal should find helpful.
[/quote]

Amen. It has a forum for people to discuss openly differences in Catholicism(very unlike this site...), but many of the views of people there have nothing to do with the site itself, all of which is sound. Don't take the opinion of people like say me for instance, as the position of the site.

P.S. Hey Vox .

[dUSt]

[quote name='VoxClamantis' post='979489' date='May 12 2006, 03:03 PM']
But there [i]is [/i] a divide. There are those who worship acc. to the 1962 Missal/calender (or older) and who see the post-Conciliar changes in those things as (at the least) unwise, and those who don't. There are those who have serious problems with (at least) the typical interpretations of Vatican II's documents, and those who don't. They're different groups, hence the adjective before the "Catholicism."
[/quote]
Right. I would like to think of phatmass as a "Catholic" website, who accepts the teachings of the current magisterium without having any "serious problems" with it. The alternative follows the same path as Protestantism. Instead of accepting/following, with obedience, the teachings of the church, you accept/follow your personal interpretation of what you [b]think[/b] the church should teach.

The difference is that Protestants usually only look to the Bible for their personal interpretation, while it seems that most of the audience at fisheaters looks to the Bible and church documents for their personal interpretation.

[VoxClamantis]

[mod]Catholic vs Catholic debate. - dUSt[/mod]