CathInfo.com

Hobble,

I knew it was a periodical. A speculum is also a medical instrument for gynecological exams. I was just surprised they'd name a periodical this title because of the obvious double entendre. Because I don't subscribe to the "speculum" hardly shows I am incompetent to contribute to the discussion, especially since "the speculum" as the official publication of CTK would no doubt relate the story we heard from the two brothers. Unless, of course, sede faithful ran the magazine and then went rogue after the Abbott died.

I thought I answered your question. I stated that I cannot judge individuals or the internal forum. Objectively, sedes deny the current pope is pope and thus deny his authority in principle and reject communion with him. As such their objective state is one of schismatics, though how culpable they are for this schism depends on many internal factors I'm not capable of knowing or judging.

There are similarities between both camps (Sede and Trad) because they both recognize there is a crisis. Many Ecclesia Dei groups recognize this as well, though the Neo-Caths either do not or attribute it all to pesky minor isolated incidences of disobedient libs. This is all well and good. However, sede-ism is a seeming diabolical black hole that sucks in otherwise good Traditionalists into a state of powerless isolation, detached, and out of the fight for good, right where the devil wants them. Then they turn on the Traditionalists with a special venom normally reserved for Satan and the damned including the Pope, BF, everybody is fair game. The rules of morality no longer apply and calumny, detraction, slander, libel, hatred, are all a-ok for these people. The state of sedevacantism seems a bitter anti-chamber of Hell formed by the devil and his angels. This is, of course, just my opinion.

I'm sorry you perceieve my words as uncharity, they are simply my opinion.

Hobble,

I knew it was a periodical. A speculum is also a medical instrument for gynecological exams. I was just surprised they'd name a periodical this title because of the obvious double entendre.

I italicized the "If" because I could not have moral certainty whether you knew about the Speculum or not. I didn't know the gynecological reference [here's what I would have responded to that twenty years ago: "eww!"], since I know about that area of human topography as much as I know about nuclear physics.

I thought I answered your question. I stated that I cannot judge individuals or the internal forum. Objectively, sedes deny the current pope is pope and thus deny his authority in principle and reject communion with him. As such their objective state is one of schismatics, though how culpable they are for this schism depends on many internal factors I'm not capable of knowing or judging.

There are similarities between both camps (Sede and Trad) because they both recognize there is a crisis. Many Ecclesia Dei groups recognize this as well, though the Neo-Caths either do not or attribute it all to pesky minor isolated incidences of disobedient libs. This is all well and good.

Why can't you write like this all the time, Stevus? A calm, courteous perspective, though with which I cannot agree but nonetheless I appreciate the manner wherewith they are posited.

And then, just as I am about to sigh in relief in that some sort of decorum has somehow filtered into the discussion, this happens:

However, sede-ism is a seeming diabolical black hole that sucks in otherwise good Traditionalists into a state of powerless isolation, detached, and out of the fight for good, right where the devil wants them. Then they turn on the Traditionalists with a special venom normally reserved for Satan and the damned including the Pope, BF, everybody is fair game. The rules of morality no longer apply and calumny, detraction, slander, libel, hatred, are all a-ok for these people. The state of sedevacantism seems a bitter anti-chamber of Hell formed by the devil and his angels. This is, of course, just my opinion.

Yes of course this is just your opinion, and it may very well be that of most other anti-sedevacatist polemicists who are more careful of what they write and how they write it. However, there is a difference between something that explicitly postulates sedevacantism as something inherently evil, demoniacal, fit only for daft neutered dogs, an occasion of mortal sin, etc., seemingly without any regard to common courtesy [not to mention charity], and a systematic, well-substantiated and docuмented attempt to refute sedevacantism without recourse to ad hominem attacks.

The former cannot contribute to fruitful discussion and it will just provoke further irrational response, which will in turn provoke still further irrationality, and so on ad nauseum. The latter can contribute to fruitful discussion because it based on principles, and it will ultimately be a motivation for further study and more careful research, even if there is still disagreement between both camps.

The exchange I had with Decem was very constructive precisely because it was based on principles and because each of us carefully worded his reply. We didn't have a word-fight and categorically sent each other to hell.

It's like two different men wrote the two different quotes from your reply that I have cited. But I will concede that in this reply you at least used the subjunctive mood.

By the way, the sedevacantism you describe would be that of the Dimond Brothers, the weird stance of Hobson, and the extreme schismatics that have been banned from this forum in the past. But I do not think it is that espoused by such groups as the CMRI, or by any serious sedevacantist here [they would have been already if it were otherwise, I think].

I'm sorry you perceieve my words as uncharity, they are simply my opinion.

I just wish you would be more solicitous in expressing yourself more carefully and courteously, at least for your own sake. If you keep expressing yourself with untempered emotion you are not going to get anywhere with anyone.

I remembered you at Mass this morning. Maybe what I'm trying to get across will reach you somehow. God bless.