fisheaters


#21

FYI

Please remember that we do not criticize or judge another Catholic site, their members or their staff. Such behavior is uncharitable. Uncharitable posting is a violation of the rules on CAF.

“Say only the good things men need to hear.”


#22

But one cannot say the same thing about Catholic Answers as an informational site, whereas one most certainly can about fe.


#23

[quote="Baelor, post:22, topic:277823"]
But one cannot say the same thing about Catholic Answers as an informational site, whereas one most certainly can about fe.

[/quote]

You will find that Catholic Culture's review is entirely wrong. They are taking into account the forum, which is a rather silly thing to do because then, as I said before, they'll have to say the same thing about THIS site.


#24

[quote="The_Curt_Jester, post:23, topic:277823"]
You will find that Catholic Culture's review is entirely wrong. They are taking into account the forum, which is a rather silly thing to do because then, as I said before, they'll have to say the same thing about THIS site.

[/quote]

TCJ, I vet my sources very carefully, and I only wish that you would not waste my time and do the same. You will notice that each of the "Weaknesses" links to something on the main website, whether the Introduction, material posted, links, or written pieces, and some make additional reference the forums.


#25

I have checked Catholic Culture out. Their assertions are pretty laughable. For instance, “only cites pre-Vatican II documents”. So… somehow quoting from before V2 makes the site unfaithful? That’s odd. Vatican II did a lot of reiterating of what was taught before Vatican II.

If I’m “wasting your time” you’re free to not reply to me. In the end, you choose how to spend your time, so the fault lies with you, not me. :wink:


#26

:eek:Oh blow…it must be because I am at the end of the world here in rural New Zealand…:confused::smiley:


#27

Fisheaters is my home.


#28

Please spare me. Catholic cultures hold no authority and it’s there mere opinion. I don’t even frequent FE that often but I defend it because it does contain much valuable information that is easy read. CC is always being brought up in order to denounce FE, please give it a rest.


#29

I followed that link, thanks for the information.

Did anyone else laugh at the implication that it is unfaithful to the Church to offer only pre-VII encyclicals? I know there is context at work here, but seriously: is is also unfaithful to the Church to offer only post-VII encyclicals? If so, most Catholic sites I’ve visited are unfaithful.

LOL


#30

I am sparing you nothing. You are more than welcome to disagree with what is objectively true. Not a single person in this thread has suggested that Catholic Culture reviews have any authority. That does not mean that they are anything but factual. They mention objective weaknesses. Their “authority” comes from the fact that they recognize and report reality, not from any theological basis. It makes me sad that people do not understand this.

I think that was more listed as a weakness of the site rather than something more sinister, but still.


#31

CC’s opinions are not simply stating what is objectively true and factual. For example, it equates criticism of the OF with rejection of it. These are not the same thing. Pope Benedict himself has expressed criticism of this form of Mass.

Probably you have the same bias as CC so you can not recognize it when you see it. This is normal.


#32

Yes, LOL.

I have seen a good number of posters post Catholic Culture reviews and I’m not sure why. Who are they?


#33

It said that the site implicitly and explicitly rejects the OF. Claiming that the OF Mass is inherently arrogant, only something that ill-formed Catholics would be okay with, a violent (unacceptable?) break with tradition, etc. are all simply more than criticisms, and to label them merely as such is disingenuous.

Probably you have the same bias as CC so you can not recognize it when you see it. This is normal.

Bias? What bias? I am interested in what is the case. Have you read the website?

And why would anyone care what CC is? I do not understand. If someone links to a Satanic site that claims 2+2 = 4, is that fact wrong?


#34

[quote="TrueLight, post:32, topic:277823"]
Yes, LOL.

I have seen a good number of posters post Catholic Culture reviews and I'm not sure why. Who are they?

[/quote]

Trinity Communications
Who We Are

CatholicCulture.org is run by a non-profit (501 c 3) corporation, Trinity Communications. The board and officers of Trinity Communications are Catholic laymen faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, who seek to enrich faith, strengthen the Church and form Catholic culture according to the mind of the Church.

Trinity Communications draws special inspiration from the outstanding Catholic vision and wisdom of Pope Benedict XVI.


#35

I see. Thanks.

I think it is important to remember that the site does reviews, which means it is their opinion.


#36

I went to it last night around 10:00PM and it wasn't working. There was a message that the 'site is having problems, try again later'. This morning it is working.


#37

[quote="Baelor, post:33, topic:277823"]
It said that the site implicitly and explicitly rejects the OF. Claiming that the OF Mass is inherently arrogant, only something that ill-formed Catholics would be okay with, a violent (unacceptable?) break with tradition, etc. are all simply more than criticisms, and to label them merely as such is disingenuous.

[/quote]

They are certainly strong criticisms but they are not rejection. Nowhere does it say that the OF is not valid or not Catholic or that nobody should ever attend it. These are the sort of comments that would constitute a rejection. The CC review is reading in a rejection (which is why they use the word "implicitly") which is not, in fact, there.

They have written an opinion and it is incorrect to treat it as an indisputable fact.

[quote="Baelor, post:33, topic:277823"]

Bias? What bias? I am interested in what is the case. Have you read the website?

[/quote]

Yes, I have read the FE site and I have looked at the specific examples given by CC in support of their opinions. In my opinion they are wrong. And my opinion is just as good as their opinion.


#38

[quote="floresco, post:37, topic:277823"]
They are certainly strong criticisms but they are not rejection. Nowhere does it say that the OF is not valid or not Catholic or that nobody should ever attend it. These are the sort of comments that would constitute a rejection. The CC review is reading in a rejection (which is why they use the word "implicitly") which is not, in fact, there

[/quote]

I agree with you -- CC was wrong to call an explicit rejection, especially given that FE agrees that it is a valid Mass:

I believe that all Masses offered by validly ordained priests using valid matter, form, and intent, are valid Masses, including the vastly inferior new rite of the Mass.

So, CC was wrong in its analysis. The quotation from the website, however, remains a quotation taken directly from the website.

Yes, I have read the FE site and I have looked at the specific examples given by CC in support of their opinions. In my opinion they are wrong. And my opinion is just as good as their opinion.

That's nice.


#39

I believe Catholic Culture does a wonderful service for Catholics who need to know whether they are in safe territory when they visit sites that may distort the true faith. Whenever they give a “red - danger” rating, there is always authentic source material to back up their review. They don’t simply furnish a rating based on their own instinct, but on facts.

With regard to Fisheaters, the weakness where C.C. obtained their facts are from the actual Introduction on FE’s website. To be sure it was not obtained at an older date, I looked up the reference. Indeed, it is the actual present-day Introduction in full view for all who visit FE’s website. This is the wording, which in my opinion, certainly warrants the “red-danger” rating given to them by C.C. In fact, I would go much farther than merely calling this a “weakness.”

From the Introduction:

In this section, I focus solely on the traditional Latin Mass based on the Missal of 1962 which is used by most traditional priests (including the F.S.S.P. and the S.S.P.X.). After much study, I’ve come to the conclusion that, validity issues aside, the “Novus Ordo Mass” is 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 is “not Catholic enough.”

The “Novus Ordo,” whether offered in English or Latin, is a violent break with Tradition, directly responsible, in part, for the great loss of faith which followed its publication. “Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi” – let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer" is the rule of liturgy – but the prayers of the Novus Ordo, designed to make Protestants comfortable with the Mass, express Protestant belief not by what it says, but by what it fails to say – that is, by its omissions – and serve to lead us to believe as Protestants in that it practically nullifies the experience of the realities of the Sacrifice and the priesthood. The Novus Ordo – not so much for what it is inherently, but for what it isn’t, for what it lacks – appears as the “Mass of Cain,” arrogantly bringing his own works to God; the ancient Mass is the “Mass of Abel,” who humbly offered God a sacrifice – a lamb that prefigured the Passover lamb which, in turn, prefigured the Lamb Who takes away the sins of the world, Whose offering of Himself to us is eternal.

The stripping away of the signs and symbols of the Mystery, the eradication of the poetic, the intentional blurring of the line between the ordained and common priesthoods, music that ranges from the banal to the offensive, the total ignoring of Gregorian chant, the failure to retain our sacred language, the “busy-ness,” the dearth of silence, and, most of all, the almost total lack of emphasis on the Sacrifice – to not be offended by these things, especially after having studied the purpose of the Mass and our worship’s relationship to our belief, is to be either ignorant of or ill-willed toward the Catholic Faith.

BTW, did anyone notice that Catholic Answers has the highest “green” rating, with absolutely no weaknesses?


#40

[quote="Baelor, post:38, topic:277823"]

So, CC was wrong in its analysis. The quotation from the website, however, remains a quotation taken directly from the website.

[/quote]

Yes, CC was wrong. You don't need their analysis and opinions. You are capable of looking at the website and forming your own opinion on it. Your opinion, like mine, is just as good as theirs.

A review site like CC might be useful for people who have not received enough formation in faith to judge things for themselves. I can see it serving a purpose for new Catholics or those who have been poorly educated. But it becomes a bad thing when it encourages people to mental laziness. It is also a bad thing when people turn to it as an authority. The authority in the Catholic Church is the Magisterium. It is wrong when this role is usurped by websites.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.