Two new civil wars within the Catholic Church

[AN2]

Ah, yes, the modern priest—the very embodiment of our time’s tragicomic fall from grace. You found yourself trapped in the Church of Nice, where the central tenet is “don’t offend,” and the liturgy has been reduced to something resembling a UN seminar on hospitality. This priest of yours was prattling on about “welcoming strangers,” all wrapped up in Bible stories, as if the entire history of Christendom could be boiled down to a Hallmark card about inclusion.

What you’re witnessing is nothing new. This isn’t Catholicism as it was handed down through the ages, through saints, councils, and martyrs. No, this is Vatican II Catholicism—“Catholicism Lite.” It’s the church trying to cozy up to the world instead of standing firmly as the rock it’s meant to be. The priest isn’t leading his flock; he’s following the world, turning his back on Tradition in the name of some vague, worldly charity. He has fallen into the trap of thinking that nice and good are synonyms.

But what about actual Catholicism—the one that built Western civilization? You mention the disconnect between what your modern priest preaches and what more hardline Catholics online are saying. Well, here’s your answer: Historically, the Church was not in the business of “making friends” with those who would tear down her sanctuaries. When the Catholic Faith and Christian civilization were under attack, the Church stood with sword in hand. Look no further than the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, when the Catholic League defeated the Ottoman fleet. That wasn’t achieved by sitting in circles holding hands and “welcoming the stranger.” It was achieved by men defending Christendom, knowing that there are times when defense is a form of love for one’s people, one’s culture, and one’s Faith. Currently, hostile immigrants in France, Canada and the US are literally burning down hundreds of churches and these weak men of the cloth are not uttering a word.

And let's not forget: the Church has always taught that Charity begins at home. That means ensuring the safety, integrity, and spiritual welfare of our own communities first. When the Faith is strong, then it can welcome those who come in peace, who seek truth, and who wish to embrace—not erase—our culture and our Church. But welcoming those who openly reject our Faith and culture under the guise of “niceness” is neither charity nor wisdom. It’s moral cowardice disguised as virtue.

So yes, there is division within the modern Church. On one hand, you have the modernist priest and his followers, who think the Gospel is about making people comfortable. On the other hand, you have the Catholics who know their history and their Faith, who are increasingly frustrated by the Church’s descent into soft, squishy platitudes. The difference between them? One group believes in eternal truths; the other believes in being “nice.” So next time a priest preaches from the altar of modernism, remember this: the Church was not founded to be nice. It was founded to save souls.

The Catholic community around the globe covers every conceivable race from Africans, to Indonesians, to Latino’s. There isn’t an issue with race, there’s an issue with radicals from other religions and cultures trying to erase it. Catholics have the right to defend themselves. There’s a noticeable difference in how immigrants from Poland and the Philippines integrated into our society in previous decades due to homogeneous cultural practices compared to the current crop of very alienating and hostile cultures arriving on our shores.

Simple enough for you O’Connor?

Pox Populi would have a field day with this post

 

[Tiger]

Pox Populi would have a field day with this post

I have no idea who that is, nor do I care.

Presumably it’s just another person that you outsource your thinking to.

 

[AN2]

I have no idea who that is, nor do I care.

Whether you care who he is, I've told you, scroll up

Presumably it’s just another person that you outsource your thinking to.

This is incredibly rich, coming from you

 

[Tiger]

Whether you care who he is, I've told you, scroll up


This is incredibly rich, coming from you

How about you reply with what YOU think versus what someone else might think.

 

[AN2]

How about you reply with what YOU think versus what someone else might think.

What if we both think the same thing?

I can certainly do that but spare me the Mowl or roc esque rubbish about outsourcing my thoughts

 

[Tiger]

What if we both think the same thing?

I can certainly do that but spare me the Mowl or roc esque rubbish about outsourcing my thoughts

If you have the same ideas as Poxy, why not reply with your own thoughts instead of referencing someone nobody knows or cares about?

 

[AN2]

If you have the same ideas as Poxy, why not reply with your own thoughts instead of referencing someone nobody knows or cares about?

You're being belligerent

I don't say that nobody knows or cares about, for example, Daily Dose Of "Mic Drop" Wisdom even though I think that he's an utter gobshite.

I can parse a few of the points in your post, with reference to the Btwixt/Pox discussion, if you wish to continue?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

You can have an integrally Catholic anti-Nationalism (and I am not saying that I would agree with such)- you can also though have an integrally Catholic Nationalism, however people like Pox Populi are right in that Catholicism, like any universalism such as Libertarianism or Socialism, will relativize that Nationalism, make it less than the sole most important thing.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

I can parse a few of the points in your post, with reference to the Btwixt/Pox discussion, if you wish to continue?

I would be interesting in reading such even if Tiger might not be.

 

[AN2]

I would be interesting in reading such even if Tiger might not be.

Well, I could certainly make a few points, nothing mind-blowing

But it would be in response to Tiger's post, so better at least with his participation

 

[Tiger]

Well, I could certainly make a few points, nothing mind-blowing

But it would be in response to Tiger's post, so better at least with his participation

Sure, work away.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Simple enough for you O’Connor?

Do you understand that referring to roc_ as O'Connor which he does not mind at all is aimed to anger the mods? Someone has been thread banned for doing so already on this thread.

 

[AN2]

Sure, work away.

Okay, great.

I would have a few points in reply, perhaps we could break it up into parts.

First of all, I know you didn't listen to the videos - which is fine. But if you listen to just the first minute or two of Part 1 (in post #37) you might find that Pox somewhat agrees with you about a modern, current age or "squishy" Christianity (and I'm quite sure that he mentions Vatican II in the videos)

Moving along, chronologically with your post, you say -

But what about actual Catholicism—the one that built Western civilization?

Nah, I would disagree with that

 

[Tiger]

Do you understand that referring to roc_ as O'Connor which he does not mind at all is aimed to anger the mods? Someone has been thread banned for doing so already on this thread.

Nope. Did not know that.

Never got the memo. I’m not in any of the cosy private chats.

 

[AN2]

View: https://t.me/zoomerwaffenx/15


Don't really care whether she's Catholic

 

[Tiger]

Okay, great.

I would have a few points in reply, perhaps we could break it up into parts.

First of all, I know you didn't listen to the videos - which is fine. But if you listen to just the first minute or two of Part 1 (in post #37) you might find that Pox somewhat agrees with you about a modern, current age or "squishy" Christianity (and I'm quite sure that he mentions Vatican II in the videos)

Moving along, chronologically with your post, you say -

But what about actual Catholicism—the one that built Western civilization?

Nah, I would disagree with that

Correct, I did not watch those videos, I’ll have a listen later and let you know what I think.

Ok, so you would disagree with the notion that actual Catholicism built Western civilization?

Look, it’s not a matter of opinion—this is historical fact, whether or not one finds it comfortable. Western civilization, as we know it, was not some spontaneous development born from the Enlightenment or whatever secular myth is being sold these days. It was the product of the Catholic Church’s teachings, institutions, and defense of Christendom. But fine, let’s break it down.

The university system? Founded by the Catholic Church. The first universities in Paris, Bologna, and Oxford were not secular playgrounds; they were established by Catholics with the express purpose of teaching theology, law, and the sciences—all in the context of the Faith. The preservation of classical knowledge during the so-called "Dark Ages"? It was Catholic monasteries, not pagan philosophers or Enlightenment heroes, that preserved and copied texts from Aristotle, Plato, and others. Without the Church, Europe would have sunk into intellectual oblivion.

Then there's the moral foundation of Western law. The concept of natural law—the very idea that there are objective moral truths that transcend time and culture—is a Catholic one, codified by St. Thomas Aquinas, who didn’t just dream this up after a walk in the garden. He was drawing on centuries of Catholic teaching, which shaped the legal frameworks of Europe and beyond.

You want more? The Renaissance, often touted as some secular awakening, was deeply intertwined with Catholic patronage and theology. Michelangelo, Raphael, and even that rebellious genius Da Vinci—whose works adorned the walls of churches and were funded by popes—weren't creating art for a secular society. They were creating art for Christendom.

Now, let’s not forget the Crusades and the Reconquista. Not the sanitised, revisionist history version where everyone wrings their hands about violence, but the real history. Without Catholicism, without the Popes rallying Europe, Europe would’ve been overrun. It was the Catholic Faith that lit the fire in men’s hearts to defend what was holy and sacred. Lepanto, Vienna—these weren’t ideological wars of the modern secular state; these were the final stand of a Catholic Europe against an Islamic Caliphate that would have gladly erased Christianity from the map.

But fine, let's put history aside for a moment, because some people want to pretend as if none of that matters anymore. Let’s look at culture, shall we? The very idea of human dignity that the modern world loves to appropriate is Catholic through and through. The Imago Dei, the teaching that man is made in the image of God, shaped the way people in the West thought about individual worth, rights, and justice. Modern secular humanism tries to claim credit for human rights, but those concepts were born in the minds of men formed by Catholic theology. Go read Jacques Maritain, one of the key philosophers behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Spoiler alert: he was Catholic.

So, what exactly is it that you're disagreeing with? Are we seriously going to pretend that the secular values we see now, those same values unraveling at a pace that would make the Tower of Babel blush, somehow “built” the West? No, those values are deconstructing it, brick by brick, by severing it from its Catholic roots. Western civilization, as a cohesive force, is the child of Catholicism, and without the Church, it would never have been born.

Now, if you want to listen to Pox and have him agree that Christianity today is squishy—well, we’re on the same page there. Vatican II opened the floodgates for this soft, apologetic form of faith that cowers before the world instead of standing as a pillar of truth. But don’t conflate modern squishiness with historical Catholicism. The latter forged a civilization that transformed the world; the former can barely stand up to the culture of the next Netflix special.

So, I’ll ask again: What exactly is it that you’re disagreeing with?

 

[AN2]

Correct, I did not watch those videos, I’ll have a listen later and let you know what I think.

Let's be honest - you won't

Ok, so you would disagree with the notion that actual Catholicism built Western civilization?

Of course

Look, it’s not a matter of opinion—this is historical fact

No, it isn't a "historical fact"

White people built Western civilisation

, whether or not one finds it comfortable. Western civilization, as we know it, was not some spontaneous development born from the Enlightenment or whatever secular myth is being sold these days. It was the product of the Catholic Church’s teachings, institutions, and defense of Christendom. But fine, let’s break it down.

The university system? Founded by the Catholic Church. The first universities in Paris, Bologna, and Oxford were not secular playgrounds; they were established by Catholics with the express purpose of teaching theology, law, and the sciences—all in the context of the Faith. The preservation of classical knowledge during the so-called "Dark Ages"? It was Catholic monasteries, not pagan philosophers or Enlightenment heroes, that preserved and copied texts from Aristotle, Plato, and others. Without the Church, Europe would have sunk into intellectual oblivion.

Then there's the moral foundation of Western law. The concept of natural law—the very idea that there are objective moral truths that transcend time and culture—is a Catholic one, codified by St. Thomas Aquinas, who didn’t just dream this up after a walk in the garden. He was drawing on centuries of Catholic teaching, which shaped the legal frameworks of Europe and beyond.

You want more? The Renaissance, often touted as some secular awakening, was deeply intertwined with Catholic patronage and theology. Michelangelo, Raphael, and even that rebellious genius Da Vinci—whose works adorned the walls of churches and were funded by popes—weren't creating art for a secular society. They were creating art for Christendom.

Now, let’s not forget the Crusades and the Reconquista. Not the sanitised, revisionist history version where everyone wrings their hands about violence, but the real history. Without Catholicism, without the Popes rallying Europe, Europe would’ve been overrun. It was the Catholic Faith that lit the fire in men’s hearts to defend what was holy and sacred. Lepanto, Vienna—these weren’t ideological wars of the modern secular state; these were the final stand of a Catholic Europe against an Islamic Caliphate that would have gladly erased Christianity from the map.

But fine, let's put history aside for a moment, because some people want to pretend as if none of that matters anymore. Let’s look at culture, shall we? The very idea of human dignity that the modern world loves to appropriate is Catholic through and through. The Imago Dei, the teaching that man is made in the image of God, shaped the way people in the West thought about individual worth, rights, and justice. Modern secular humanism tries to claim credit for human rights, but those concepts were born in the minds of men formed by Catholic theology. Go read Jacques Maritain, one of the key philosophers behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Spoiler alert: he was Catholic.

So, what exactly is it that you're disagreeing with? Are we seriously going to pretend that the secular values we see now, those same values unraveling at a pace that would make the Tower of Babel blush, somehow “built” the West? No, those values are deconstructing it, brick by brick, by severing it from its Catholic roots. Western civilization, as a cohesive force, is the child of Catholicism, and without the Church, it would never have been born.

Now, if you want to listen to Pox and have him agree that Christianity today is squishy—well, we’re on the same page there. Vatican II opened the floodgates for this soft, apologetic form of faith that cowers before the world instead of standing as a pillar of truth. But don’t conflate modern squishiness with historical Catholicism. The latter forged a civilization that transformed the world; the former can barely stand up to the culture of the next Netflix special.

So, I’ll ask again: What exactly is it that you’re disagreeing with?

 

[Tiger]

So basically you have good catholics and bad catholics, is that it.

This forum's fucking nationalism again, basically. I.e. the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

And of course the 'good' side is inevitably the unit you've chosen to sink your own individuality into, in this case some kind of fundamentalist catholics, as you've defined yourselves.

Same shit always, isn't it.

What an appalling retort.

Ah, yes, the usual trope—“good Catholics, bad Catholics, nationalism, and labels”—as if every form of discernment is some crude classification of humanity like insects in a jar. Well, let’s dismantle this one piece at a time, shall we? I’m feeling generous.

First off, this isn’t about some simplistic division of “good” and “bad” Catholics as if I’m tossing out moral judgments like a reality TV host. It’s about fidelity to the truth. The Catholic Faith is not a buffet where one picks and chooses doctrines based on personal preference. There are those who follow the teachings as they have been handed down, and there are those who’ve decided they know better—often under the guise of modernity or “progress.” That doesn’t make them “bad” in some juvenile, moralizing sense; it makes them wrong. And in matters of faith and doctrine, that distinction matters—a lot.

Secondly, let’s address your accusation of “nationalism,” which seems to be the quick-draw insult for anything that smacks of loyalty to one’s own culture or values. You toss around the term as if it’s inherently bad, but here’s the thing: love for one’s country, people, and culture is not nationalism in the crass, caricatured sense you’re invoking. It’s a recognition that culture, faith, and heritage are worth preserving—especially when they’re under attack. This isn't some crude tribalism; it’s an understanding that the Faith has historically been tied to the life and identity of nations, most notably in places like Ireland, where Catholicism was not just a set of beliefs but a bulwark against oppression.
When you accuse Catholics who care about their faith and culture of “nationalism,” you’re really just taking a lazy swipe at anyone who believes in defending what’s theirs. What’s next, are we to apologize for the saints who rallied nations in defense of the Faith? Were St. Joan of Arc or King Louis IX guilty of “nationalism” too?

Now, let’s get to the real heart of your frustration: this notion of “sinking your individuality” into a unit, in this case “fundamentalist Catholics,” as you so eloquently put it. You see, this is the language of modern individualism—the false idol of our times. The idea that the highest good is to be “yourself,” detached from any larger identity, is precisely what has hollowed out the modern soul. But the Catholic Faith has always taught that true individuality only flourishes in communion with something greater—namely, the Body of Christ, which is the Church. We’re not dissolving our individuality; we’re elevating it by rooting it in eternal truths, rather than letting it drift aimlessly in a sea of subjective feelings and transient cultural trends.

And speaking of trends, let’s talk about what really “sinks” individuality. It’s not tradition or fidelity to a faith that’s stood the test of time. No, what erodes individuality is the mindless conformity to the modern world’s fads—where people are herded into ideological echo chambers, spouting the same slogans about “tolerance” and “inclusion,” all while losing any real sense of who they are or where they came from. In today’s world, the real act of rebellion, the real assertion of individuality, is standing with Tradition—not the world.

Finally, let’s touch on your accusation that this is “the same shit always,” implying that this conversation is nothing but a tiresome reiteration of some historical “us versus them.” Well, yes—it is a reiteration, because some things are worth defending, even when the world tires of hearing about them. Christ Himself said, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). That’s not the language of a man concerned with being “nice” or making everyone feel comfortable. The Church has always been at odds with the world, and that tension isn’t going away just because it makes modern sensibilities uncomfortable.

So, here’s what’s “same shit always”: the world will always try to tear down the truths it finds inconvenient. And Catholics who actually believe in their faith will always have to stand against it. If that feels repetitive, it’s because the truth is unchanging, while the lies just keep reinventing themselves.

 

[AN2]

What an appalling retort.

Ah, yes, the usual trope—“good Catholics, bad Catholics, nationalism, and labels”—as if every form of discernment is some crude classification of humanity like insects in a jar. Well, let’s dismantle this one piece at a time, shall we? I’m feeling generous.

First off, this isn’t about some simplistic division of “good” and “bad” Catholics as if I’m tossing out moral judgments like a reality TV host. It’s about fidelity to the truth. The Catholic Faith is not a buffet where one picks and chooses doctrines based on personal preference. There are those who follow the teachings as they have been handed down, and there are those who’ve decided they know better—often under the guise of modernity or “progress.” That doesn’t make them “bad” in some juvenile, moralizing sense; it makes them wrong. And in matters of faith and doctrine, that distinction matters—a lot.

Secondly, let’s address your accusation of “nationalism,” which seems to be the quick-draw insult for anything that smacks of loyalty to one’s own culture or values. You toss around the term as if it’s inherently bad, but here’s the thing: love for one’s country, people, and culture is not nationalism in the crass, caricatured sense you’re invoking. It’s a recognition that culture, faith, and heritage are worth preserving—especially when they’re under attack. This isn't some crude tribalism; it’s an understanding that the Faith has historically been tied to the life and identity of nations, most notably in places like Ireland, where Catholicism was not just a set of beliefs but a bulwark against oppression.
When you accuse Catholics who care about their faith and culture of “nationalism,” you’re really just taking a lazy swipe at anyone who believes in defending what’s theirs. What’s next, are we to apologize for the saints who rallied nations in defense of the Faith? Were St. Joan of Arc or King Louis IX guilty of “nationalism” too?

Now, let’s get to the real heart of your frustration: this notion of “sinking your individuality” into a unit, in this case “fundamentalist Catholics,” as you so eloquently put it. You see, this is the language of modern individualism—the false idol of our times. The idea that the highest good is to be “yourself,” detached from any larger identity, is precisely what has hollowed out the modern soul. But the Catholic Faith has always taught that true individuality only flourishes in communion with something greater—namely, the Body of Christ, which is the Church. We’re not dissolving our individuality; we’re elevating it by rooting it in eternal truths, rather than letting it drift aimlessly in a sea of subjective feelings and transient cultural trends.

And speaking of trends, let’s talk about what really “sinks” individuality. It’s not tradition or fidelity to a faith that’s stood the test of time. No, what erodes individuality is the mindless conformity to the modern world’s fads—where people are herded into ideological echo chambers, spouting the same slogans about “tolerance” and “inclusion,” all while losing any real sense of who they are or where they came from. In today’s world, the real act of rebellion, the real assertion of individuality, is standing with Tradition—not the world.

Finally, let’s touch on your accusation that this is “the same shit always,” implying that this conversation is nothing but a tiresome reiteration of some historical “us versus them.” Well, yes—it is a reiteration, because some things are worth defending, even when the world tires of hearing about them. Christ Himself said, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). That’s not the language of a man concerned with being “nice” or making everyone feel comfortable. The Church has always been at odds with the world, and that tension isn’t going away just because it makes modern sensibilities uncomfortable.

So, here’s what’s “same shit always”: the world will always try to tear down the truths it finds inconvenient. And Catholics who actually believe in their faith will always have to stand against it. If that feels repetitive, it’s because the truth is unchanging, while the lies just keep reinventing themselves.

Another tonne of waffle, I'm afraid

roc says that Catholics are bad (Catholics) if they're racist

Prove him wrong

 

[Tiger]

Another tonne of waffle, I'm afraid

roc says that Catholics are bad (Catholics) if they're racist

Prove him wrong

It’s like watching a dog walk on its hind legs talking to you both about Catholicism.

The “waffle” accusation—is the last refuge of those who can’t actually refute the argument presented.

There was no “waffle” in my response, and certainly no shortage of facts. You’re simply just flailing about because the argument hit too close to home, and you have no counter beyond a few lazy slaps at supposed “racism.” But fine, let’s dig deeper since you seem determined to misunderstand the issue.

First, let’s correct your fundamental error. You’ve misunderstood Catholicism entirely if you think this conversation has anything to do with “racism.” To reduce the position of faithful Catholics to some tired secular accusation of bigotry is, frankly, embarrassing for you. Catholicism is universal— the word itself comes from the Greek katholikos, meaning universal.

The Church is made up of every race and ethnicity under the sun. In fact, the global reach of the Church puts it light-years ahead of any secular notion of diversity. Go to a Mass in Africa, South America, or Asia, and tell me again that Catholicism has a race problem. Catholics come in every skin color imaginable, from the heart of Nigeria to the mountains of Peru. The Church doesn’t care about skin color; it cares about the soul.

So what’s this about rejecting non-Catholic immigrants? It’s not about where they’re from, but what they believe. And here’s the crucial point you’re missing: the Catholic Church has always made a distinction between welcoming individuals in charity and defending the integrity of the Faith. When immigrants come from cultures or belief systems that are antagonistic to Catholicism—say, Islamic cultures that have a long history of persecution against Christians—the Church is not obligated to pretend that those differences don’t exist. The Church isn’t a globalist free-for-all where every belief system is treated as equally valid. The Truth is singular, and the Church defends it.

Let me educate you a bit more on this. In the history of the Church, there’s always been a recognition that not every culture or religion is compatible with Catholicism. Look at the Reconquista in Spain, where Catholic monarchs expelled the Moors after centuries of Islamic rule. Was that “racism”? Of course not. It was about defending the Catholic Faith and Christian civilization from forces that sought to undermine and destroy it. The Church didn’t crusade against Islam because it had a problem with Arabs; it fought because Islam is an inherently antagonistic religion to Catholicism. You can’t read history and honestly tell me that this was about race.

 

[AN2]

It’s like watching a dog walk on its hind legs talking to you both about Catholicism.

The “waffle” accusation—is the last refuge of those who can’t actually refute the argument presented.

I'm literally not reading your waffle anymore

roc says that Catholics are bad Catholics if they're racist - say something about that, if you can

We can move on to my next point in reply to your post..

There was no “waffle” in my response, and certainly no shortage of facts. You’re simply just flailing about because the argument hit too close to home, and you have no counter beyond a few lazy slaps at supposed “racism.” But fine, let’s dig deeper since you seem determined to misunderstand the issue.

First, let’s correct your fundamental error. You’ve misunderstood Catholicism entirely if you think this conversation has anything to do with “racism.” To reduce the position of faithful Catholics to some tired secular accusation of bigotry is, frankly, embarrassing for you. Catholicism is universal— the word itself comes from the Greek katholikos, meaning universal.

The Church is made up of every race and ethnicity under the sun. In fact, the global reach of the Church puts it light-years ahead of any secular notion of diversity. Go to a Mass in Africa, South America, or Asia, and tell me again that Catholicism has a race problem. Catholics come in every skin color imaginable, from the heart of Nigeria to the mountains of Peru. The Church doesn’t care about skin color; it cares about the soul.

So what’s this about rejecting non-Catholic immigrants? It’s not about where they’re from, but what they believe. And here’s the crucial point you’re missing: the Catholic Church has always made a distinction between welcoming individuals in charity and defending the integrity of the Faith. When immigrants come from cultures or belief systems that are antagonistic to Catholicism—say, Islamic cultures that have a long history of persecution against Christians—the Church is not obligated to pretend that those differences don’t exist. The Church isn’t a globalist free-for-all where every belief system is treated as equally valid. The Truth is singular, and the Church defends it.

Let me educate you a bit more on this. In the history of the Church, there’s always been a recognition that not every culture or religion is compatible with Catholicism. Look at the Reconquista in Spain, where Catholic monarchs expelled the Moors after centuries of Islamic rule. Was that “racism”? Of course not. It was about defending the Catholic Faith and Christian civilization from forces that sought to undermine and destroy it. The Church didn’t crusade against Islam because it had a problem with Arabs; it fought because Islam is an inherently antagonistic religion to Catholicism. You can’t read history and honestly tell me that this was about race.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

I'm literally not reading your waffle anymore

roc says that Catholics are bad Catholics if they're racist - say something about that, if you can

We can move on to my next point in reply to your post..

Is the below racist?

"One of them a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies. This testimony is true wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the Faith".

Whether it is or not it is in the Catholic New Testament as part of a Divinely Inspired letter of St Paul (Titus 1:12-13).

 

[AN2]

Is the below racist?

"One of them a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies. This testimony is true wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the Faith".

Whether it is or not it is in the Catholic New Testament as part of a Divinely Inspired letter of St Paul (Titus 1:12-13).

There isn't any mention of race

 

[Tiger]

I'm literally not reading your waffle anymore

roc says that Catholics are bad Catholics if they're racist - say something about that, if you can

We can move on to my next point in reply to your post..

Ah, now we’re down to the classic retreat into willful ignorance—“I’m not reading your waffle.” That’s fine.

When faced with facts that disrupt the comfortable narrative, the easiest move is to plug your ears and shout “racist.” So, let’s simplify it for you: Catholics are bad Catholics if they’re racist because racism denies the fundamental truth that all human beings are made in the image of God. The Church has always condemned racism—Pope Pius XI made this clear when he denounced Nazi racial ideology in the 1930s, and it’s been reaffirmed in countless papal encyclicals. But that’s not the issue here, and I suspect you know that.

The real question, which you keep dodging, isn’t about race—it’s about defending the Faith. The Church’s stance on protecting itself from ideologies or religions that are antagonistic to Catholicism has nothing to do with skin color. Islam, for example, isn’t rejected because of the ethnicity of its adherents; it’s rejected because its tenets are incompatible with the Catholic Faith. So if you’re looking for “racism” in this conversation, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Try engaging with the real argument instead of throwing around tired, baseless accusations

 

[AN2]

I'm literally not reading your waffle anymore

roc says that Catholics are bad Catholics if they're racist - say something about that, if you can

We can move on to my next point in reply to your post..

So..

I'm kinda skipping a bit (of your post) here but anyway..

"And let's not forget: the Church has always taught that Charity begins at home. That means ensuring the safety, integrity, and spiritual welfare of our own communities first. When the Faith is strong, then it can welcome those who come in peace, who seek truth, and who wish to embrace—not erase—our culture and our Church."

You're literally for inifinite Africans as long as they're Christian #catholicglobalism

 

[Tiger]

So..

I'm kinda skipping a bit (of your post) here but anyway..

"And let's not forget: the Church has always taught that Charity begins at home. That means ensuring the safety, integrity, and spiritual welfare of our own communities first. When the Faith is strong, then it can welcome those who come in peace, who seek truth, and who wish to embrace—not erase—our culture and our Church."

You're literally for inifinite Africans as long as they're Christian #catholicglobalism

Let’s be crystal clear from the outset: Traditional Catholic Ireland would certainly not welcome endless immigrants from Africa simply because they are Catholic. Far from it. The idea that a shared religious label automatically equates to seamless cultural integration is a modern fantasy, and it fundamentally misunderstands both the history of the Church and the nature of Catholicism as it has been practiced in nations like Ireland for centuries.

Historically, Ireland—like other Catholic nations—has always been fiercely protective of its local culture and Catholic identity. The Faith in Ireland was never about a shallow, abstract universality; it was deeply embedded in the fabric of Irish life, customs, and community. The Church has always taught that charity begins at home, which means ensuring the spiritual and cultural welfare of one’s own community first. The Irish fought hard to preserve their Catholicism through centuries of Protestant persecution, from the Elizabethan conquest to the Penal Laws. They didn’t endure these trials just to dissolve their faith and culture in a wave of mass immigration, even from Catholics. These are your ancestors James. That’s the truth of it. So, it’s no surprise to see you still fighting the same fight. It’s in your DNA.

And history offers us further examples. Look at Spain during the Reconquista. The Catholic monarchs were not welcoming invaders simply because they were fellow monotheists. On the contrary, they fought to reclaim Spain’s Christian identity from Muslim rule, expelling not only Muslims but Jews as well, who refused conversion. They understood that the survival of their Catholic kingdom depended on the protection of its cultural and religious integrity.

Likewise, Catholic nations have never blindly opened their borders to every Catholic immigrant without consideration for the well-being of their own people. The Church distinguishes between true charity and reckless globalism. The welcoming of immigrants has always been measured, ensuring that those who come are willing to embrace the local customs and the integrity of the Faith, not overwhelm it. Even in the early missionary work of the Church, this principle held: new converts were integrated into the Church’s universal message, but they were also shaped by the local Christian culture.

So, no, the idea that Ireland—or any other historically Catholic nation—would welcome a flood of immigrants simply because they are nominally Catholic is completely false. The Faith is universal, but it has always worked within the framework of local culture and tradition, safeguarding the unique identity of the nations in which it thrives. To suggest otherwise is to ignore centuries of Catholic teaching and history.

 

[AN2]

Let’s be crystal clear from the outset: Traditional Catholic Ireland would certainly not welcome endless immigrants from Africa

Ah, so you focused on my word "infinite"

The point is, you don't reject any immigrants, regardless of race, so long as they're of your religion

That ain't nationalism, bruv. You ain't no nationalist. What have I been saying all this time.

You're a fairly hardcore Catholic bigot, tho

simply because they are Catholic. Far from it. The idea that a shared religious label automatically equates to seamless cultural integration is a modern fantasy, and it fundamentally misunderstands both the history of the Church and the nature of Catholicism as it has been practiced in nations like Ireland for centuries.

Historically, Ireland—like other Catholic nations—has always been fiercely protective of its local culture and Catholic identity. The Faith in Ireland was never about a shallow, abstract universality; it was deeply embedded in the fabric of Irish life, customs, and community. The Church has always taught that charity begins at home, which means ensuring the spiritual and cultural welfare of one’s own community first. The Irish fought hard to preserve their Catholicism through centuries of Protestant persecution, from the Elizabethan conquest to the Penal Laws. They didn’t endure these trials just to dissolve their faith and culture in a wave of mass immigration, even from Catholics. These are your ancestors James. That’s the truth of it. So, it’s no surprise to see you still fighting the same fight. It’s in your DNA.

And history offers us further examples. Look at Spain during the Reconquista. The Catholic monarchs were not welcoming invaders simply because they were fellow monotheists. On the contrary, they fought to reclaim Spain’s Christian identity from Muslim rule, expelling not only Muslims but Jews as well, who refused conversion. They understood that the survival of their Catholic kingdom depended on the protection of its cultural and religious integrity.

Likewise, Catholic nations have never blindly opened their borders to every Catholic immigrant without consideration for the well-being of their own people. The Church distinguishes between true charity and reckless globalism. The welcoming of immigrants has always been measured, ensuring that those who come are willing to embrace the local customs and the integrity of the Faith, not overwhelm it. Even in the early missionary work of the Church, this principle held: new converts were integrated into the Church’s universal message, but they were also shaped by the local Christian culture.

So, no, the idea that Ireland—or any other historically Catholic nation—would welcome a flood of immigrants simply because they are nominally Catholic is completely false. The Faith is universal, but it has always worked within the framework of local culture and tradition, safeguarding the unique identity of the nations in which it thrives. To suggest otherwise is to ignore centuries of Catholic teaching and history.

 

[Tiger]

Ah, so you focused on my word "infinite"

The point is, you don't reject any immigrants, regardless of race, so long as they're of your religion

That ain't nationalism, bruv. You ain't no nationalist. What have I been saying all this time.

You're a fairly hardcore Catholic bigot, tho

Nope, I literally said the opposite of that in post #73. You simply can’t read. You have comprehension issues.

Also, I noticed you never replied to my assertion about Catholicisms’ influence on Western Culture. You just completely ignored it. Yet you had your knickers in a twist about earlier. Then….nothing.

 

[AN2]

Nope, I literally said the opposite of that. You simply can’t read. You have comprehension issues.

"There’s a noticeable difference in how immigrants from Poland and the Philippines integrated into our society in previous decades due to homogeneous cultural practices compared to the current crop of very alienating and hostile cultures arriving on our shores."

You could not give a f*ck about race, all you care about is (your) religion

That ain't nationalism, bruv

 

[AN2]

Nope, I literally said the opposite of that. You simply can’t read. You have comprehension issues.

Also, I noticed you never replied to my assertion about Catholicisms’ influence on Western Culture. You just completely ignored it. Yet you had your knickers in a twist about earlier. Then….nothing.

You edited..

I didn't ignore it, I reject the claim that "Catholicism built Western civilisation"

You're putting the cart before the horse

 

[SeekTheFairLand]

It’s like watching a dog walk on its hind legs talking to you both about Catholicism.

The “waffle” accusation—is the last refuge of those who can’t actually refute the argument presented.

There was no “waffle” in my response, and certainly no shortage of facts. You’re simply just flailing about because the argument hit too close to home, and you have no counter beyond a few lazy slaps at supposed “racism.” But fine, let’s dig deeper since you seem determined to misunderstand the issue.

First, let’s correct your fundamental error. You’ve misunderstood Catholicism entirely if you think this conversation has anything to do with “racism.” To reduce the position of faithful Catholics to some tired secular accusation of bigotry is, frankly, embarrassing for you. Catholicism is universal— the word itself comes from the Greek katholikos, meaning universal.

The Church is made up of every race and ethnicity under the sun. In fact, the global reach of the Church puts it light-years ahead of any secular notion of diversity. Go to a Mass in Africa, South America, or Asia, and tell me again that Catholicism has a race problem. Catholics come in every skin color imaginable, from the heart of Nigeria to the mountains of Peru. The Church doesn’t care about skin color; it cares about the soul.

So what’s this about rejecting non-Catholic immigrants? It’s not about where they’re from, but what they believe. And here’s the crucial point you’re missing: the Catholic Church has always made a distinction between welcoming individuals in charity and defending the integrity of the Faith. When immigrants come from cultures or belief systems that are antagonistic to Catholicism—say, Islamic cultures that have a long history of persecution against Christians—the Church is not obligated to pretend that those differences don’t exist. The Church isn’t a globalist free-for-all where every belief system is treated as equally valid. The Truth is singular, and the Church defends it.

Let me educate you a bit more on this. In the history of the Church, there’s always been a recognition that not every culture or religion is compatible with Catholicism. Look at the Reconquista in Spain, where Catholic monarchs expelled the Moors after centuries of Islamic rule. Was that “racism”? Of course not. It was about defending the Catholic Faith and Christian civilization from forces that sought to undermine and destroy it. The Church didn’t crusade against Islam because it had a problem with Arabs; it fought because Islam is an inherently antagonistic religion to Catholicism. You can’t read history and honestly tell me that this was about race.

Is that why the Pope gave his blessing for Henry to take Ireland into his kingdom.
That until Henry VIII the Church would have had no problem with the English conquest of Ireland.
The Church in Ireland will have no problem with those Catholic Indians, Nigerians and Brazilians flooding into Ireland as long as they keep up the footfall into their buildings? of course not.

 

[Declan]

Am I mistaken??? But surely the Catholic Church is not in the least bit nationalist and will welcome everyone in, not only catholics but everyone

 

[AN2]

Am I mistaken??? But surely the Catholic Church is not in the least bit nationalist and will welcome everyone in, not only catholics but everyone

Good point. The Church itself doesn't eh, discriminate

 

[AN2]

Is that why the Pope gave his blessing for Henry to take Ireland into his kingdom.
That until Henry VIII the Church would have had no problem with the English conquest of Ireland.
The Church in Ireland will have no problem with those Catholic Indians, Nigerians and Brazilians flooding into Ireland as long as they keep up the footfall into their buildings? of course not.

He'll stick that into ChatGPT and have an answer for you soon enough

 

[Tiger]

Am I mistaken??? But surely the Catholic Church is not in the least bit nationalist and will welcome everyone in, not only catholics but everyone

Of course you’re mistaken. What you’re suggesting has never happened.

Anywhere.

It’s the post-Catholic, Godless Ireland with its Godless politicians, (all of whom are driven by secularism) that have exposed our country to having an open border policy.

Our government and the entire political spectrum are detached from the Church's teachings, and they all promote this policy in line with the globalist ideologies that have swept across Europe.

Traditional Catholic Ireland, on the other hand, never embraced such ideas. The Ireland that remained fiercely Catholic for centuries—fighting for its Faith against English Protestant rule—would never have tolerated policies that threatened the integrity of its culture or the survival of the Faith.

The Catholic Church has always upheld the principle of subsidiarity: decisions about migration and community welfare should prioritise the well-being of local populations, not follow some reckless, one-size-fits-all open border ideology.

 

[AN2]

Of course you’re mistaken. What you’re suggesting has never happened.

Anywhere.

It’s the post-Catholic, Godless Ireland with its Godless politicians, (all of whom are driven by secularism) that have exposed our country to having an open border policy.

Our government and the entire political spectrum are detached from the Church's teachings, and they all promote this policy in line with the globalist ideologies that have swept across Europe.

Traditional Catholic Ireland, on the other hand, never embraced such ideas. The Ireland that remained fiercely Catholic for centuries—fighting for its Faith against English Protestant rule—would never have tolerated policies that threatened the integrity of its culture or the survival of the Faith.

The Catholic Church has always upheld the principle of subsidiarity: decisions about migration and community welfare should prioritise the well-being of local populations, not follow some reckless, one-size-fits-all open border ideology.

Your Church is much, much more than useless when it comes to white genocide.. Anything to say about that?

And what's your solution if it's squishy, we all become "actual Catholics"?

 

[SeekTheFairLand]

Of course you’re mistaken. What you’re suggesting has never happened.

Anywhere.

It’s the post-Catholic, Godless Ireland with its Godless politicians, (all of whom are driven by secularism) that have exposed our country to having an open border policy.

Our government and the entire political spectrum are detached from the Church's teachings, and they all promote this policy in line with the globalist ideologies that have swept across Europe.

Traditional Catholic Ireland, on the other hand, never embraced such ideas. The Ireland that remained fiercely Catholic for centuries—fighting for its Faith against English Protestant rule—would never have tolerated policies that threatened the integrity of its culture or the survival of the Faith.

The Catholic Church has always upheld the principle of subsidiarity: decisions about migration and community welfare should prioritise the well-being of local populations, not follow some reckless, one-size-fits-all open border ideology.

The Catholic Church sold out to British rule once Peel offered them the cash to build and run Maynooth. Cullen would later threaten Fenians with excommunication and Dr Moriarity lamented that hell wasn’t hot enough and eternity not long enough for them.

Peel had spend his money well

 

[AN2]

The Catholic Church has always upheld the principle of subsidiarity: decisions about migration and community welfare should prioritise the well-being of local populations, not follow some reckless, one-size-fits-all open border ideology.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Anxehra5CAg&t=42m23s

 

[Tiger]

Your Church is much, much more than useless when it comes to white genocide.. Anything to say about that?

And what's your solution if it's squishy, we all become "actual Catholics"?

I see you’re butt hurt because I’ve shined a light on the reality that Ireland is being destroyed by design by white, Godless people like yourself and not by the God fearing faithful.

Imagined scenarios which didn’t happen, aren’t happening and won’t be happening in the future is all you have.

Whearas back on plane earth, post-Catholic Ireland is a complete basket case, where the population voted to kill Irish babies and Godless Irish men and women are pushing the most perverted curriculum in the history of education.

The optics for our Godless nation are abysmal.

 

[Tiger]

Ah, so you focused on my word "infinite"

The point is, you don't reject any immigrants, regardless of race, so long as they're of your religion

That ain't nationalism, bruv. You ain't no nationalist. What have I been saying all this time.

You're a fairly hardcore Catholic bigot, tho

I’m 100% ethnically Irish. Unlike you ‘bruv’