Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: A fair question.  (Read 13591 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Machabees

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 826
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
A fair question.
« on: May 16, 2014, 08:28:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A fair question.

    I would like to ask a fair question; one that it seems others are starting to ask also.  

    That is, as the brave SSPX Resistance Priests and faithful who have stood up for the true legacy and fight of Archbishop Lefebvre (ABL) against modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, which the SSPX under the present leadership has been compromising to, and these brave Priests and faithful have put themselves in a humbling yet courageous position to now call out [their] superiors from their errors of going down the wrong road ABL had warned them about, as well as, from the Providence shown from the 9-other traditional groups that had fallen to the conciliarist, in addition to seeing the way they are being treated and censored by the modernists from within conciliar Rome in which they had made allegiance to, these energetic priests said that they cannot do everything, of course, and have asked us to help them to organize the fight we are all in danger with; and together communicate the needs, resources, and talents, like any Catholic legion would do, to fight for Christ the King.

    One of the ways to do that is to form Catholic Resistance websites dedicated to the cause; in using the internet, as well as print, video, and audio, to unite us in this terrible battle against our souls and against our children’s souls.

    In response to this plea, and even organically happening from the need at hand, there have been some that took up the fight; and God bless them abundantly.  There are websites and forums that have started with the abilities that they had at the time, and with the time to do it, with the support of many people, they started to grow.

    With that said, there has been a growing concern over the last year especially, and even more recently in some forums, that the entitled “R&R” forums are being overrun particularly by sedevacantists spreading their [errors] on such R&R sites.

    That concern was met with a lot of reasonable and fair questions from the R&R people across the many Forums; why is this happening on an R&R site?  It is certainly disturbing and distracting to the need at hand in order to unite and organize our efforts unadulterated by constant [derailments] of the sedevacantists; many intentional; some not.

    The assumption of these website(s) in this new sspx-crisis is that these are R&R websites and forums, if not publicly stated so, so why are they not guarded and protected from such infiltration?  The same question can be applied to the Church as a whole, why wasn’t the gate watched?  Certainly in regards to Rome, we would not have this problem within this crisis in the magnitude as it is; nor on the R&R websites.

    To make the point and to be clear about sedevacantism, as I have written many times,

    Sedevacantism is a possibility in any epoch of time.  To discuss the possibilities is a good and discerning thing to do; with humility, understanding, knowledge, wisdom, and patience.

    To go to the next level of judging a valid Pope, when as a layman one has NO authority to do so, and spread that "belief" to others on a public platform is not only erroneous, it is evil.  "Whoa to those who scandalize the children..."

    There are many good people who are studying sedevacantism, for those who conclude that there is the greatest evidence that he is "not the Pope", the same people also recognize that it is [their] private understanding and do not push it in public; unfortunately like those on this forum and on others that do.

    Where is the humility to know one’s place?  The possibility of Sedevacantism can be collected from the faithful and prelates to form a body of "evidence", then submit it to the proper Authorities God had established.  If that cannot be done, then be patient, and let God act as God.  He will not leave us "orphans".

    Judging a valid Pope out of his office is NOT your place.  Where is your absolute certitude?  There is none!  Then it is self-evident not to judge God’s Authority –the Pope.

    Further, Sedevacantism is a NOUN.  It is a state of being.  When one describes oneself as a Protestant, or a Sedevacantist, one is stating that they have already made that judgment against God’s Authority and disposed the valid Pope in their mind and life; extremely dangerous.  As said above, a Catholic cannot judge God’s Authority without disassociating oneself from the communion of the Church.  You can look up the catechetical quotes of what that separation means.

    Canon Hesse has given excellent answers to understand this present crisis; along with addressing the sedevacantist issue.

    The warnings must be made.  Sedevacantists are protestants at best (independent); and Jansenistic at least (legal determinism).  

    As it is that Sedevacantism is another thorn and distraction in this crisis, along with their other splinter errors, that if it is not tempered on an R&R Website and Forum, it can derail the focus of the fight that we all are duty bound in our Baptism to fight.

    There are some suggestions that I do recommend for the R&R people and for the administrators in a moment.

    First, I would like to ask a couple of other questions directly to the administrators and moderators:

    •   These discussions from the R&R members on your website(s) are coming out honestly; with concern for the overall good.  You know this.
    •   With the many dozen other members, I too have tried for this good to happen over the last weeks especially; only to constantly be derailed by the sedes, again, and censored by the administrators; along with being slandered with intentions I/we never had; when other R&R members got it, and the administrators (and moderators) spun it; then deleted all traces of the archive.  Whose side are you on?
    •   If you state that you are an “R&R” site that honors ABL, and you have a sub-forum, or an entire site dedicated to the “cause”, why is it then that these questions of R&R members on some of these particular “R&R” Forums are censored with posts and threads deleted, even locked, when they bring up this topic?  Why are these types of questions monitored with scrutiny; like having scruples?  Why the political football without addressing the real issue and nothing is getting done about it?
    •   On several “R&R” Forums over the years or so, R&R members have left and were “banned” because of asking these questions.  Why on a supposed R&R Forum?  
    •   Yes there are two particular “R&R” Forums I do know of that have started their websites with sedevacantists; whether as co-owners or as co-moderators.  And that is fine; if it is tempered and not distracted from ABL’s mission that we have taken to ourselves.  If you claim that you are 100% an “R&R” Forum for ABL, why then the censoring and duplicity?

    So what it comes down to it this.  Here is the suggestion.  If you want to say that you are a Resistance site, you need to protect the Resistance site, or the Resistance designated sub-forum, from the sedevacantist derailments; and box in the sedevacantists and other derailers, not the Resistance from the former’s whining and whims.  

    So it is very simple.  Administrative "rules" is not the answer.  Have a separate sedevacantist sub-forum dedicated by itself; whereby sedevacantism is not allowed anywhere else on the site.  Box in sedevacantists; not the R&R cause.

    This conversation needs to be had; even though many have tried and are still getting their posts and Threads deleted; along with getting banned.   It is none the less, a fair question…

    It remains: “So which side of History will you be on?”

    Viva Christo Rey…


    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6882
    • Reputation: +3849/-406
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
    A fair question.
    « Reply #1 on: May 16, 2014, 08:34:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Machabees
    Have a separate sedevacantist sub-forum dedicated by itself; whereby sedevacantism is not allowed anywhere else on the site.  Box in sedevacantists; not the R&R cause.

    I thought Cathinfo already did this with the sub-forum Crisis in the Church.
    R.I.P.
    Please pray for the repose of my soul.


    Online MaterDominici

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 5438
    • Reputation: +4152/-96
    • Gender: Female
    A fair question.
    « Reply #2 on: May 16, 2014, 08:53:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matto
    Quote from: Machabees
    Have a separate sedevacantist sub-forum dedicated by itself; whereby sedevacantism is not allowed anywhere else on the site.  Box in sedevacantists; not the R&R cause.

    I thought Cathinfo already did this with the sub-forum Crisis in the Church.


    It's in the rules and is enforced as often as it bothers one of us. But, a R&R member is just as likely to bring up the topic outside the Crisis subforum as a sede member is. (This thread, for example.)
    "I think that Catholicism, that's as sane as people can get."  - Jordan Peterson

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    A fair question.
    « Reply #3 on: May 16, 2014, 08:58:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: MaterDominici
    Quote from: Matto
    Quote from: Machabees
    Have a separate sedevacantist sub-forum dedicated by itself; whereby sedevacantism is not allowed anywhere else on the site.  Box in sedevacantists; not the R&R cause.

    I thought Cathinfo already did this with the sub-forum Crisis in the Church.


    It's in the rules and is enforced as often as it bothers one of us. But, a R&R member is just as likely to bring up the topic outside the Crisis subforum as a sede member is. (This thread, for example.)


    That is very true. The R&R folks are just as dogmatic in their views as are the sedevacantists.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4452
    • Reputation: +5061/-436
    • Gender: Male
    A fair question.
    « Reply #4 on: May 16, 2014, 09:04:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: J.Paul
    Quote from: MaterDominici
    Quote from: Matto
    Quote from: Machabees
    Have a separate sedevacantist sub-forum dedicated by itself; whereby sedevacantism is not allowed anywhere else on the site.  Box in sedevacantists; not the R&R cause.

    I thought Cathinfo already did this with the sub-forum Crisis in the Church.


    It's in the rules and is enforced as often as it bothers one of us. But, a R&R member is just as likely to bring up the topic outside the Crisis subforum as a sede member is. (This thread, for example.)


    That is very true. The R&R folks are just as dogmatic in their views as are the sedevacantists.


    With the exception of Bellarmine Forums, the majority ( I dare say vast majority ) of threads about sedevacantism on the various trad fora are started by non-sedevacantists, either asking a question about sedevacantism or posting a "debunk" of it.  To which, naturally, sedevacantists reply.



    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31182
    • Reputation: +27097/-494
    • Gender: Male
    A fair question.
    « Reply #5 on: May 16, 2014, 09:14:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What are you talking about? What do you mean, "Whose side are you on?" Resistance supporters as such don't get censored, banned or deleted here on CathInfo. That is not to say they're above the law, however.

    If a Resistance supporter (or anyone else) posts a thread that goes against the spirit of what I'd like to see on CathInfo, enough to motivate me to remove it, it's going to get removed.

    I believe what you're complaining about is the recent thread you started that I removed (wherein you and 2 mods from another forum went round-and-round). I already addressed that issue publicly. I even seconded the point you were making (which was the only item of value I could salvage from that thread) before I locked the thread.

    I try to keep the forum organized, and I want all discussion of the Church Crisis in general kept in the Crisis subforum.

    I note that you started this thread about Sedevacantism (your argument is very much "contra", but it's still about Sedevacantism) in the SSPX Resistance subforum rather than the Crisis subforum. How can you expect others to abide by rules you don't even abide by?

    I have a policy of being charitable to Sedes that act Catholic. I don't ban them, make them wear an "empty chair" arm band (nαzι-style), or any other kind of mistreatment. I'm not 100% sure that they're wrong. And here's the trick: No one is. We just don't know. I wouldn't want to ban them out of ignorance, and then find out they were right one day and have to apologize. I'm the type to be careful in the first place, rather than act rashly and have to apologize.

    I allow any Sedes that are non-dogmatic. A dogmatic Sedevacantist claims that you must be Sede to be Catholic, as if "the See is vacant" has been added to the body of Revelation which must be held as dogma by all Catholics.

    As long as a person is not schismatic -- if they acknowledge as Catholic those that are Catholic -- they are welcome on CathInfo.

    I think we have far too many sedevacantists to keep them "caged"; and besides, they're not lepers. Discussions on the Pope and other Crisis issues must stay in the Crisis subforum, however, for the sake of organization.

    I do have to move threads all the time though, and I will continue to move them. I especially hate it when people start Crisis threads in General Discussion.

    Anyhow, I hope this clears things up.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4621/-480
    • Gender: Male
    A fair question.
    « Reply #6 on: May 16, 2014, 10:03:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    I think we have far too many sedevacantists to keep them "caged"; and besides, they're not lepers.


    Thank you, Matthew.  I do appreciate this comment.

    There are most definitely a few posters on this forum who would have sedevacantists start every post with a warning:

       :cry: Unclean!  :cry: Unclean!  :cry: Unclean!  :cry:

    Actually, these posters would rather have us all banned.  Frankly, I think these are the people who would be more at home at Catholic Answers Forum, now that I've learned how that forum works (from reading another topic).  There certainly would be a lot fewer posts if sedevacantists and discussions of sedevacantism were banned!

    Offline Machabees

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 826
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    A fair question.
    « Reply #7 on: May 16, 2014, 10:10:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Your response did validate the Thread's claim.  You are still hitting the political football again in regards to uniting and protecting the dedicated Resistance sub-forum

    Quote from: Matthew
    What are you talking about? What do you mean, "Whose side are you on?" Resistance supporters as such don't get censored, banned or deleted here on CathInfo. You did a week ago in fact deleted two-threads discussing this very matter: "A B L Forums admits to be over run by sedevacantists", and "What happened to the Thread ....". That is not to say they're above the law, however.

    If a Resistance supporter (or anyone else) posts a thread that goes against the spirit of what I'd like to see on CathInfo, enough to motivate me to remove it, it's going to get removed.

    I believe what you're complaining about is the recent thread you started that I removed CONFIRMED. (wherein you and 2 mods from another forum went round-and-round). I already addressed that issue publicly. I even seconded the point you were making (which was the only item of value I could salvage from that thread) before I locked the thread.  

    If you did "lock" it, it was for mere moments; you had outright you deleted the subject the Thread was trying to make -Point taken!  Second point, "if" you say that you "seconded the point that the OP was making, and MaterDominici certainly understood it when she made her post in astonishment that a website saying that it is dedicated to ABL has censored and deleted R&R members posts; and you wrote in your own "complaint" within a "locked" thread, that no one can respond to (nice move), with several paragraphs that MaterDominici understood the problem, and what did you do?  You deleted the subject matter so no one can see the importance of the concern.  Please...  Third point, you also CONFIRMED that the subject matter was derailed (by sedevacantists again), and instead of moderating it with a post to get back on track, IM me, or an email, you just deleted the whole concern; with NO announcement, NO disclosure, NO transparentcy, NO anything; hence another post was started to ask what happened.  No reply from you, again! You just deleted that one also!  Only until much later when everyone is asking what is going on.  You respond with your own locked thread.  

    Question, why let the sedevacantist continue to derail the threads?  That is the reason and the conversation for this new thread.  Hoping that you will take it seriously; if you want us to take you seriously.


    I try to keep the forum organized, and I want all discussion of the Church Crisis in general kept in the Crisis subforum.

    I note that you started this thread about Sedevacantism (your argument is very much "contra", but it's still about Sedevacantism) in the SSPX Resistance subforum rather than the Crisis subforum. How can you expect others to abide by rules you don't even abide by?

    Not true!  I started this thread in the proper resistance subforum as evident about the nature of the subject -RESISTANCE; to get others organized from the detractors and derailers; which you already CONFIRMED above.

    I have a policy of being charitable to Sedes that act Catholic. I don't ban them, make them wear an "empty chair" arm band (nαzι-style), or any other kind of mistreatment. I'm not 100% sure that they're wrong. And here's the trick: No one is. We just don't know. I wouldn't want to ban them out of ignorance, and then find out they were right one day and have to apologize. I'm the type to be careful in the first place, rather than act rashly and have to apologize.

    You then admit that you have no CONVICTION in the matter; that is precisely why there are problems on Cathinfo as an R&R site.  You are not a 100% positioned R&R as we have suspected.  So thank you for being honest about this.

    I allow any Sedes that are non-dogmatic. A dogmatic Sedevacantist claims that you must be Sede to be Catholic, as if "the See is vacant" has been added to the body of Revelation which must be held as dogma by all Catholics.

    As long as a person is not schismatic -- if they acknowledge as Catholic those that are Catholic -- they are welcome on CathInfo.

    I think we have far too many sedevacantists to keep them "caged"; and besides, they're not lepers. Discussions on the Pope and other Crisis issues must stay in the Crisis subforum, however, for the sake of organization.

    I do have to move threads all the time though, and I will continue to move them. I especially hate it when people start Crisis threads in General Discussion.

    Anyhow, I hope this clears things up.


    Offline Machabees

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 826
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    A fair question.
    « Reply #8 on: May 16, 2014, 10:26:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I also take note that, other than MaterDominici, the others posters on this thread are sedevacantists, including a very proud militant-sedevacantist Moderator on another supposed R&R Forum, and an "indifferent" derailer, that just love what you have to say in protecting them to continue on in derailing what they want; unsolicited.

    I get it...though I do not put incense on it.

    Online MaterDominici

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 5438
    • Reputation: +4152/-96
    • Gender: Female
    A fair question.
    « Reply #9 on: May 16, 2014, 10:31:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • FYI - Blue text mixed with black text is not the easiest thing to read.
    "I think that Catholicism, that's as sane as people can get."  - Jordan Peterson

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    A fair question.
    « Reply #10 on: May 16, 2014, 10:42:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    Quote from: Matthew
    I think we have far too many sedevacantists to keep them "caged"; and besides, they're not lepers.


    Thank you, Matthew.  I do appreciate this comment.

    There are most definitely a few posters on this forum who would have sedevacantists start every post with a warning:

       :cry: Unclean!  :cry: Unclean!  :cry: Unclean!  :cry:

    Actually, these posters would rather have us all banned.  Frankly, I think these are the people who would be more at home at Catholic Answers Forum, now that I've learned how that forum works (from reading another topic).  There certainly would be a lot fewer posts if sedevacantists and discussions of sedevacantism were banned!


    Typical sede.

    Stroking the moderator to keep your satanic influence alive.

    You should all be banned.

    Can I be any more dogmatic anti-sedevacantist?

    If so, let me know how!

    Matthew bears the brunt of responsibility for allowing your snare to catch more innocents.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    A fair question.
    « Reply #11 on: May 16, 2014, 10:50:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's another dogmatic anti-sedevacantist, just a few months after having expelled 9 sedevacantists........for reasons they claim had nothing to do with sedevacantism!





    Archbishop Lefebvre:

    "You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.

    "And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.

    "We are the Catholic Church.

    "I don't say that.

    "I don't accept that.

    "That is schism.

    "If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?

    "Where?

    "Where is the authority of the Church?

    "Where is our leader in the Church?

    "We can't know where we are going.

    "If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.

    "We must pray for this pope.

    "But don't say that he is not the pope."


    There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    A fair question.
    « Reply #12 on: May 16, 2014, 10:54:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I got a great idea:

    Let's keep throwing up perplexities until we cause someone to waiver, and then when they do, let's tell them it is proof that they must acknowledge there is no pope!

    If enough of us do this, we can call it a movement.

    And we can even give it a name!
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    A fair question.
    « Reply #13 on: May 16, 2014, 10:55:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Folks who are spoiling for a fight will find it wherever they go. This thread has become contentious in a very short time.
    After all this is a discussion forum where members should be able to disagree on subjects without insulting each other.
    The Catholic dignity of ladies and gentlemen is far to thin these days.

    The viewpoint of my way or the highway, may have been satisfactory for ABL in 1983, but thirty years later it is not working very well for the Society, and will not be any more effective for the "resistance".

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    A fair question.
    « Reply #14 on: May 16, 2014, 11:00:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: J.Paul
    Folks who are spoiling for a fight will find it wherever they go. This thread has become contentious in a very short time.
    After all this is a discussion forum where members should be able to disagree on subjects without insulting each other.
    The Catholic dignity of ladies and gentlemen is far to thin these days.


    Nice try-

    Your veil is nothing besides a schismatic movement looking for someone to bless it as Catholic.

    Seems to have found some receptivity on this forum.

    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."