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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance  (Read 3438 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cathman7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 815
  • Reputation: +882/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2018, 08:26:40 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • One more thing. I know when I came to Tradition many years ago, in my excessive zeal and without any real and proper knowledge I started lambasting those who weren't Catholic and those who weren't Traditional. It was childish and idiotic. For that I am embarrassed. However, I don't think I have lost any of my zeal and I want ALL to become Catholic but I have been humbled by how much I really don't know. I'd rather listen to those who have studied and who are honest than rattle off on something that is beyond my understanding or knowledge. I immediately noticed that you made several posts which are bombastic. How does that happen? Think...why are you really instigating a fight?
    Logged

    Offline cathman7

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 815
    • Reputation: +882/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #16 on: April 12, 2018, 08:34:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Samuel on April 12, 2018, 04:18:03 PM
    Because it is a futile exercise. In order to have a fruitful discussion you need two sides that are objective and willing to consider the other side, as well as respond to the arguments put forward without all the nasty techniques (diversion, quote bombing, ignoring, distorting, etc..). It is my experience that the type of people who are hot headed, emotional, opinionated and overly self sure are exactly the ones that are attracted to sedevacantism. I don't claim that all sedes are like that, but the majority of them are. It is useless to talk to these kind of people, especially in a place where they are in the majority and where a certain mob mentality takes over.
    This is spot on. 
    Logged

    Offline Samuel

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 225
    • Reputation: +286/-120
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #17 on: April 12, 2018, 08:40:10 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: saintbosco13 on April 12, 2018, 07:51:43 PM

    You give this advice and then hang out on Cathinfo where error is allowed to run rampant ?? I think you need to practice what you preach.
     

    I'm sorry you cannot see the difference.

    It is true that on CathInfo some erroneous positions are allowed, which is unfortunate. But none of these errors dominate the whole forum. And I can easily choose the few topics I am interested in, and ignore the many others I prefer to avoid. And the few errors that are allowed here are not disproportionately represented by a majority of members.

    But to join a forum whose "raison d'être" is sedevacantism, where the whole forum is tainted with sedevacantism, whose members are all there precisely because of sedevacantism and whose moderators are all sedevacantists, in order to go and "argue with them", or to try and "convert them", that imho is presumptupous.. and futile.
    Logged

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31176
    • Reputation: +27093/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #18 on: April 12, 2018, 08:53:42 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • "saintbosco13" has been banned.

    The reason should be obvious. He belongs with all those dogmatic, argumentative sedes. He can go be a sede in that self-referential echo chamber where he belongs, and keep his childish nonsense off CathInfo.

    Men like him give sedevacantists a bad name. Unfortunately he's not the only one. I'm sure the sedevacantists on CI will agree.

    On CathInfo, his kind usually get banned pretty quick. 
    Logged
    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 Croix de Fer

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3219
    • Reputation: +2525/-2210
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #19 on: April 12, 2018, 10:15:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged
    Blessed be the Lord my God, who teacheth my hands to fight, and my fingers to war. ~ Psalms 143:1 (Douay-Rheims)

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13819
    • Reputation: +5567/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #20 on: April 13, 2018, 04:29:18 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on April 12, 2018, 08:53:42 PM
    "saintbosco13" has been banned.

    The reason should be obvious. He belongs with all those dogmatic, argumentative sedes. He can go be a sede in that self-referential echo chamber where he belongs, and keep his childish nonsense off CathInfo.

    Men like him give sedevacantists a bad name. Unfortunately he's not the only one. I'm sure the sedevacantists on CI will agree.

    On CathInfo, his kind usually get banned pretty quick.
    :applause:
    That was the right move on your part Matthew for a couple of reasons. One, banning one dedicated to being a worker of iniquity is the right thing to do and two, there will likely be a temporary reprieve in his sedeism as he focuses on how rotten CI and you are for banning him and not accepting his ridiculous "challenge".
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4620/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #21 on: April 13, 2018, 08:23:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on April 12, 2018, 08:53:42 PM
    "saintbosco13" has been banned.

    The reason should be obvious.
    I'm sorry.  It's not obvious to me, but then again, I'm pretty obtuse.  

    Unless he's been banned for something he said on that other forum he referenced (which I can't see since I'm not a member), I just didn't see anything on this topic that I would have thought would get someone banned--unless he was just too "loud and proud" about his sedevacantism.
    Logged

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31176
    • Reputation: +27093/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #22 on: June 13, 2018, 12:04:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Samuel on April 12, 2018, 08:40:10 PM
    I'm sorry you cannot see the difference.

    It is true that on CathInfo some erroneous positions are allowed, which is unfortunate. But none of these errors dominate the whole forum. And I can easily choose the few topics I am interested in, and ignore the many others I prefer to avoid. And the few errors that are allowed here are not disproportionately represented by a majority of members.

    But to join a forum whose "raison d'être" is sedevacantism, where the whole forum is tainted with sedevacantism, whose members are all there precisely because of sedevacantism and whose moderators are all sedevacantists, in order to go and "argue with them", or to try and "convert them", that imho is presumptupous.. and futile.
    I'll remind Samuel his own words, from just a couple months ago, when he was a regular member here.

    Logged
    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 Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4452
    • Reputation: +5061/-436
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #23 on: June 13, 2018, 01:55:00 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!6
    • There are definitely "real" dogmatic sedes, i.e., people who think membership in the Catholic Church depends on being "non-una-cuм."  And that's just ridiculous.  Note that there are dogmatic sedeplenists too, and they're just as bad, and definitely more proliferate.

    But what I think is usually the case, and what I think is happening usually when someone is accused of being a "dogmatic" sede is that the person making the accusation finds the argument strong, but if they've already "decided" that it's wrong, they need to explain why they are compelled by it.  That's when the old "you can't force your opinion on me" canard gets toted out.  In principle it's not all that different from a liberal, atheist, or other secular type being presented with strong arguments against their position just curling up in the intellectual fetal position and covering their ears by accusing their interlocutor of "forcing" or "imposing" their opinion on them.  As soon as that card gets played, you know the discussion is over.  It's basically a self-destruct button that indicates the end of meaningful discourse about the issue.

    It's a poor state of affairs when good arguments-- which our minds are literally designed to accept-- are miscategorized as tyrannical impositions of opinion. 
    Logged
    "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: 31176
    • Reputation: +27093/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #24 on: June 13, 2018, 02:00:24 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mithrandylan on June 13, 2018, 01:55:00 PM
    It's a poor state of affairs when good arguments-- which our minds are literally designed to accept-- are miscategorized as tyrannical impositions of opinion.

    Don't flatter yourself and the arguments pro-sedevacantism.

    At best, they are a logical answer when one facet (and one facet only) of the problem is hyper-focused upon. But as soon as you zoom out a bit, sedevacantism looks much less appealing. No pope for 60 years? What about Christ's promise that Peter would have perpetual successors? And so forth.

    When I ban people for dogmatic sedevacantism, it's isn't because they were making killer arguments. It's because they were calling their opponents "non-Catholic", "heretic" and other such behavior.
    Logged
    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 Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10304
    • Reputation: +6213/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #25 on: June 13, 2018, 04:43:52 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    There are definitely "real" dogmatic sedes, i.e., people who think membership in the Catholic Church depends on being "non-una-cuм."  And that's just ridiculous.
    Dogmatic sede = Fr Cekada and the 100s of poor people he unfortunately influences.  Maybe Bishop Sanborn too, but I can't say for sure.  Though many people who attend Bishop Sanborn's chapels have called me a heretic for simply questioning sedevacantism.  
    Logged

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4620/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #26 on: June 13, 2018, 06:04:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on June 13, 2018, 02:00:24 PM
    At best, they are a logical answer when one facet (and one facet only) of the problem is hyper-focused upon. But as soon as you zoom out a bit, sedevacantism looks much less appealing. No pope for 60 years? What about Christ's promise that Peter would have perpetual successors? And so forth.

    I can see your point.  But I just don't understand why having a pope who can promulgate heresy and liturgies dangerous to the faith is better than not having a pope for 60+ years.

    You say that sedevacantism is a logical answer for (at least part) of the problem, but your rejection sounds like it is based on an emotional appeal.
    Logged

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31176
    • Reputation: +27093/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #27 on: June 13, 2018, 06:14:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: TKGS on June 13, 2018, 06:04:30 PM
    I can see your point.  But I just don't understand why having a pope who can promulgate heresy and liturgies dangerous to the faith is better than not having a pope for 60+ years.

    You say that sedevacantism is a logical answer for (at least part) of the problem, but your rejection sounds like it is based on an emotional appeal.

    It's not an emotional appeal. It's an appeal to reason. Is it reasonable that the Church could lack Popes for 60+ years, when Our Lord promised perpetual successors to Peter? I could accuse you of emotion too, but that wouldn't necessarily make it true.

    It's all a matter of which aspect of the problem you focus on, and prioritize solving. This crisis is such a mess, with few answers. That's why we have to give people a wide latitude and a lot of leeway in how they deal with it.
    Logged
    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

    Online PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 900
    • Reputation: +776/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #28 on: June 13, 2018, 06:23:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 13, 2018, 04:43:52 PM
    Dogmatic sede = Fr Cekada and the 100s of poor people he unfortunately influences.  Maybe Bishop Sanborn too, but I can't say for sure.  Though many people who attend Bishop Sanborn's chapels have called me a heretic for simply questioning sedevacantism.  
    From what I've heard, yes, +Sanborn is very dogmatic.  Maybe sedeprivationist (?), but dogmatically anti-una cuм.  Someone who went to his seminary said:  "I have my opinions of course but don't feel as though anyone who disagrees with me should be therefore condemned as a heretic.  Unfortunately, I got into that mindset under Father Sanborn... "
    Quote from: TKGS on June 13, 2018, 06:04:30 PM
    I can see your point.  But I just don't understand why having a pope who can promulgate heresy and liturgies dangerous to the faith is better than not having a pope for 60+ years.

    You say that sedevacantism is a logical answer for (at least part) of the problem, but your rejection sounds like it is based on an emotional appeal.
    Matthew also said "And so forth", meaning presumably there are other 'facets' to consider.  Like the very big facet of needing a "convalidation feedback loop" as Lad calls it when dealing with a pope.  "... the Magisterium then becomes subject to a convalidation feedback loop.  Pope teaches dogma.  Is dogma Traditional?  If yes, then accept.  If not, then reject pope.  Rinse.  Repeat.  Ultimate arbiter of dogma then becomes the individual's private judgment. "
    Logged

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4620/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A challenge for those in SSPX or Resistance
    « Reply #29 on: June 13, 2018, 06:41:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Matthew on June 13, 2018, 06:14:15 PM
    It's not an emotional appeal. It's an appeal to reason. Is it reasonable that the Church could lack Popes for 60+ years, when Our Lord promised perpetual successors to Peter?
    Since "perpetual" does not mean "continuous", yes.  It is reasonable that the Church could lack a pope for 60+, 70+ years and even longer.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2] 3
    « previous next »