Matthew said recently:

Quote

Yes, I know, I know. I'm treating sedevacantists like 2nd class citizens. Guess what? Newsflash -- this isn't a sedevacantist board. It's an SSPX board, and I'm not sedevacantist, I attend the SSPX. So if you feel like you're in 2nd place, it's because you are! What do you think, I'm going to put SSPX in second place? Don't be ridiculous!

Matthew said to Alexandria today:

Quote

It's your PRIDE which considers Sedevacantists to be "1st class citizens" which causes you to consider yourself a 2nd class citizen here.

I will leave this evidence here for you to do with as you will
Matthew, and then I will pray that you do the right thing.  

I will try to explain so it's clearer.

I don't have ghettoes for the Sedevacantists on this here SSPX board. I don't have a virtual armband for gypsies, Jєωs, gαys, or sedevacantists. I could easily do so, by the way. I'm a programmer, and I could easily add a field for "Sede" in the user record, which would show up below your name. But I don't wish to do this.
Yes, CathInfo is an SSPX board, due to the fact that I'm pro-SSPX. But I've talked many times before (till I'm blue in the face, actually) about how that doesn't mean much, because everyone is free to discuss and argue here. If I allow both sides to talk, discuss, have heated discussions, argue vehemently, etc. then what does it matter what the "official CathInfo position" is?
De-facto, it's a Traditional Catholic forum in general. It's not de-facto an SSPX board since a large percent of the membership is sedevacantist. But since I run CathInfo, I get to give CathInfo it's "personality" or "official identity". If CathInfo went to Mass, he would go out of his way to find an SSPX chapel. But CathInfo isn't a man, so what does it matter?

I suppose I should have been clearer before, and chosen better words. What I truly mean is,

We have no "first class" or "second class" citizens here. But  Alexandria, for whatever reason, obsessed over the fact that I favor the SSPX more than sedevacantists. Why does she care so much which group I favor personally? If I am asked who is "number 1" of course I'm going to say SSPX. But I don't go around saying that, or acting like it. I just require sedevacantists to keep in mind that this is not a sedevacantist board. I'm not inviting them here because I'm one of them -- I am being charitable to them, and I expect the same in return. How is that bad?

Let's trade places. If she ran a forum (virulently anti-SSPX, of course) and I was a member (hahaha. As if she would allow SSPX-leaning members), what if I complained all the time that SSPX members were treated like 2nd class citizens? I can only imagine how she would get annoyed with my constant complaints.

She seems to genuinely hate the SSPX, since she wants SSPX anything to be treated like dirt, or "put in its place". The more a given CathInfo member is anti-SSPX, the more she wants to be their friend. Any dig or low blow against the SSPX is met with unrestrained applause. I'm no fool; I know that you can tell a lot about a person by looking at their friends. She's even admitted that she doesn't care for the SSPX. But she's hiding most of her hatred, I believe. If she just wanted "equal time", the benefit of the doubt, or tolerance here -- all other CathInfo sedevacantists are content, by the way -- she should have been perfectly happy and content here. The fact that I gave the SSPX a position of honor here was like the "worm that dieth not", gnawing at her constantly.

Here are some quotes from Alexandria's recent posts:

People that are engaged in the cultish behaviour of worshiping their idols (be it JPII, Sheen or ABL) are not capable of objective or reasonable thought.
...
Unless [the SSPX] have changed, not really.  Their faithful are quite divided about many things.  And the priests - I found some saying that JPII's first encyclical was heretical to others that made me wonder why they were with the SSPX rather than the FSSP. That was my experience with them.
...
What amazes me the most is how an SSPXer can't see his/her own inconsistencies, or that the SSPX has become an ABL cult - Lefebvre is your very own JPII.
Sorry, Matthew. I spent, as you all know, almost ten years with the SSPX. I am sick and tired of sedes being denigrated and looked down upon as third class Catholics by neo-Cats and the SSPX. Does it make you all feel better about yourselves to have a common enemy - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

So this isn't the first time she's spit venom at the SSPX.

She's had a lot of good posts, about a great many topics. Why do you think she's been on here so long? But as of late, it seems like she's been more and more bothered by the fact that I favor the SSPX.

Matthew

I will say, Dawn and Alexandria wrote to me that she got banned and I was about to come here and burn my bridges.  If either one is permanently banned for a reason I judge unfair -- because I am the monarch of my own mind, if not the site -- I'm out of here.  Then I learned that Alexandria was only banned until Aug. 15, which they failed to say.  

I still think the right thing to do is let Alexandria back on.  Your policy Matthew was that as long as people showed charity they could stay.  Well, Alexandria shows far more charity to your side than Caminus to ours.  There is a double-standard, as I'm sure you're aware, and which you don't apologize for.  But Alexandria did not transgress anyone's bounds of charity, either yours or God's.  She doesn't like the SSPX.  I am boggled to see how she got kicked off for that which seems more mild than most of what I say.  

Alexandria said:

I am sick and tired of sedes being denigrated and looked down upon as third class Catholics by neo-Cats and the SSPX.

First of all, Alexandria is not even a convicted sede.  I don't know how much she wants me to say about herself, but she is not yet fully convinced of the sede position.

And what is wrong with what she says here?  She is not necessarily talking about CathInfo when she mentions sedes being treated like dirt.  She is stating a fact.  Sedes don't have their own forum; on AngelQueen, loathsome heretics involved with the VII sect are treated with more respect than sedes, whose very name isn't even permitted to be invoked.  We are booted off almost every forum.  

And yet despite all this, our position is right!  This is what creates hostility to the SSPX.  They have more in common with VII types at this point than with traditionalists who have a nearly airtight argument against the usurpers in Rome.  Their way of acting is highly passive-aggressive and infuriating, ignoring all complaints about their inconsistencies.

Since you don't see all that yet, Matthew, let me put it to you this way.  Imagine you are going to the Novus Ordo, and you want to kneel for Communion.  Imagine after "Mass," the "priest" comes out and says to everyone in front of you, "Some people need to feel special more than others, I guess" and then everyone laughed smugly.  This is precisely the passive-aggressive quality of SSPX where they ignore the holes in their position, then they try to shut your mouth, and then they act holy.  

I won't lie; it definitely creates aggravation.  Only one side can be right; and since sedes believe we have it, how well do you think we're going to respond to being driven in a corner like this?  You have the numbers and the surface success.  We are the underdogs, and we are acting like underdogs.

You're opinion about the papacy and by extension the entire hierarchy is not an article of faith, it is not a belief, it is not due to a special grace of the Holy Ghost.  It is an opinion, a judgment about a particular fact and that is all.  It is an extraneous judgment and subject to real censure insofar as you claim it is binding on other Catholics.  

Insofar as you make it an article of faith, a point of communion of the Church, to that same extent you put yourself outside of the Church by schism and arrogate to yourself the function of the magisterium, making your own private judgment the rule of faith and practice which then merits for yourself the title of heresiarch.  For that is the one common note of all heretics, they make their opinions and judgment the rule of faith preferring it instead to the proximate rule of faith, the magisterium.  St. Thomas condemns all such pretension as perversion by usurpation insofar as one pretends it is binding.    

The opinion itself is not censurable, but it is the perverse will and defective reason of men that, per accidens, make it so.  On top of that, it is a diversion, one that can claim no real certitude, a superfluous judgment that falls well outside our particular duties of state, whether priest or laymen.  On this ground alone, it is worth suspending judgment.        

Do you think St. Catherine of Siena would have gone to a Mass that was una cuм Peter de Luna, sophist?  Look at how desperate you are.  I'm schismatic and a heresiarch?  Aren't you ashamed of yourself?  No, you don't have any shame.

Do you think St. Catherine of Siena would have gone to a Mass that was una cuм Peter de Luna, sophist?  Look at how desperate you are.  I'm schismatic and a heresiarch?  Aren't you ashamed of yourself?  No, you don't have any shame.

Yes, Mike, what you say, think and do has real consequences.  It's time for you to wake up and realize this.  You can't just come along and make up the rules.  You can't claim to be catholic while disregarding everything that doesn't square with your opinions.  You can drown in the high seas or in a glass of water, the fact of the matter is you'll be a dead man either way.  

Caminus said:

I asked you directly to explain how this might work, how would it resolve the issue if we all became sedevacantist.  And what was your reply?  "Duh, well, I don't know, sometimes I say things and don't know what I mean."  Yet, you say it again, with the same hollow threat of divine chastisement.  Yawn.  Do you have alzheimer's?  

If all of the traditional bishops were sedevacantist, along with the million-plus members of SSPX, we could elect a Pope who would have a semblance of legitimacy and who wouldn't be like a "Pope Michael."  But it is impossible for sedes to do this alone because we are too few in number and too ragtag, and our power has been too diminished by SSPX, who have thrown in their lot with antichrists, sucking up priests and bishops and offering them cushy careers so that they are at half-strength and unable to join the true resistance.

Therefore if the sedes elected a Pope, even if he were the true Pope, he would essentially come off like a laughable eccentric.  That is why we all know the time is not right to take that step.

I am almost sure that CMRI, will not ordain a new priest unless they promise to have nothing to do with a papal election.  It is not that we do not want a pope, because we do, but you have seen what happens when people go out on their own and elect popes.

You might want to check on that Raoul, next time you talk to CMRI.  

God already knows the solution to this problem.

I think Matthew has always been fair.

same here! :cheers: