Author Topic: Cath Info Posters - priorities and topics (Read 8996 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #35 on:** November 26, 2010, 09:57:34 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

I'm not saying they need to be kicked out. I'm talking about subject matter. I'd simply put the crisis section off limits for discussion of the subject of sedevacantism.

Then I'd create a new subforum where sedevacantism could be discussed at length. Maybe even put a crisis section in there where sedevacantism could be discussed.

Just ideas.

It's the same principle. On a forum like Angelqueen they'll say you can go other forums to discuss that.

The nasty treatment of sedes and sede priests is something of a scandal.

It's one thing to reject sedevacantism but it's quite another thing to purge them from your ranks.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #36 on:** November 26, 2010, 10:02:04 AM »

I don't mind running into sede arguments in the proper context.

The BXVI condom issue is a good example. If you are a sede, and he is not Pope, then who cares what he said?

Obviously the people who are going to be invested one way or another are people who believe he is Pope. And that is where the true discussion lies. Do we really need comments regarding sedevacantism in that thread?

I think it would be better if any discussion regarding sedevacantism resulted from that story it would be more properly discussed in a sedevacantist subforum. There you could explore issues relating to what he said as regards whether he is a true Pope. For the rest of us, that's not what we're going to be discussing in the crisis section because we already believe he is Pope.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #37 on:** November 26, 2010, 10:09:42 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

I don't mind running into sede arguments in the proper context.

The BXVI condom issue is a good example. If you are a sede, and he is not Pope, then who cares what he said?

It's not about whether or not you're already a sede, it's about whether or not his remarks have something to do with the sede argument. You seem to be saying that whenever the Pope goes a step further down the wrong path you don't want to hear sedes chiming in with "I told you so." Or "the sedes were right all along." We have a Pope who is rushing headlong down the wrong path and trying to drag Trads with him, and the Superior General of the SSPX is holding on tight.

Quote

Obviously the people who are going to be invested one way or another are people who believe he is Pope. And that is where the true discussion lies. Do we really need comments regarding sedevacantism in that thread?

Lots of people have a position of uncertainty on the matter.

Quote

I think it would be better if any discussion regarding sedevacantism resulted from that story it would be more properly discussed in a sedevacantist subforum. There you could explore issues relating to what he said as regards whether he is a true Pope. For the rest of us, that's not what we're going to be discussing in the crisis section because we already believe he is Pope.

You can't separate the Crisis in the Church from the cause of the Crisis. If the cause of the Crisis really is an imposter papacy then the crisis cannot be fully addressed without admitting it.

You yourself once said you'd become a sede if Kaspar was elected Pope.

Every time the Popes do something unprecedented it's perfectly legitimate for the sede issue to come up.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #38 on:** November 26, 2010, 10:16:13 AM »

Just a suggestion. We'll see what Matthew thinks.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #39 on:** November 26, 2010, 10:18:18 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

On a forum like Angelqueen they'll say you can go other forums to discuss that.

They often don't even do that. They simply lock threads.

If there is ever an actually interesting discussion going on in an AQ thread, you can be sure it will be locked ASAP.

The only acceptable threads there seem to be posts of one to two lines sporting a joke or a picture.