By "dogmatic" I mean elevating the status of the papacy to a dogma, one way or the other (which is ridiculous).

A dogmatic sedevacantist says you have to be sedevacantist to go to heaven and/or believes that non-SVs are not Catholic. Likewise a dogmatic sedeplenist says you have to acknowledge Pope Francis to go to heaven and/or that SVs are not Catholic.

Now that we got definitions out of the way...

A few points:

1. The two are not the same thing, even though they have committed a similar error.

1A. A dogmatic sedeplenist is calling 1/3 of the forum non-Catholic. A dogmatic sedevacantist is calling 2/3 of the forum AS WELL AS THE FORUM OWNER a non-Catholic. As I have mentioned before, no forum on the Internet permits a member to call the forum owner hell-bound, viscous names, etc. My open challenge to "show me just one" continues to go unanswered...

1B. All things being equal, a dogmatic sedevacantist is going to be more "back against the wall" and hard to live in peace on CathInfo with his belief. Why? Because he only has a few others (actually, they all get banned, so virtually no one) with him. Meanwhile, a dogmatic sedeplenist has the whole conciliar Church "with him", so why would he be as motivated to strike out, or even argue constantly about it? It's much more conceivable that a dogmatic sedeplenist could "live in peace" on CathInfo.

2. Incidentally, CathInfo generally tolerates a wide variety of opinions on disputed topics. Dogmatic SVs are not banned because of their beliefs; they are banned because they won't live in peace here. They are usually obsessed by the issue, and can't refrain from calling others names and spewing vitriol towards those of the opposite camp. Where I HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE (as in, I have no choice) is when a member will not live in peace about something. When he threatens the forum's very peaceful existence, he has to go. Not just disagreeing strongly with a few members; I'm talking when a member disagrees strongly with VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP. There's a difference.

That's why all those who consider CathInfo "missionary territory" have to be banned. I can't have people here who consider 99.99% of the membership to be non-Catholic. That would disrupt the forum too much.

3. In the end, I look over each case personally. How obsessed is the person in question, what exactly is he saying, etc.

There is certainly a difference between rejecting SV, considering it imprudent/rash, not being able to understand it, wondering if it's even Catholic, and jumping up and down constantly screaming "Non-Catholic" at the Sedes on this forum.

See the problem? Any non-Sede obviously thinks the position is less than virtuous, or they'd be SV themselves! So I have to be careful how far back I push that line.

TL;DR: I will continue to moderate my own forum, and judge everything on a case-by-case basis.

You (and everyone else on the forum) are always welcome to report any offensive posts.

I personally think you're exaggerating Laramie's words, which is why you are publicly grumbling rather than sending me a PM with a link to offensive post(s).

Let's put it this way: I don't tolerate people saying "you're going to Hell" to other members -- which is what you claim Laramie said. So if he said that, I have to wonder why none of the SVs on CathInfo (who are supposed to be so numerous) reported it to me?

Anything that overlooked couldn't have been that offensive.

Like any civilized society, CathInfo's laws are not Draconian. That is to say, jaywalking doesn't merit the death penalty. There are a number of courses of action I can take that don't involve banning a member.

I am much quicker to deal out lesser "punishments" (i.e., deleting an offensive post, giving a warning, or taking a public stance) if that might solve the problem for now.

I only resort to banning (the forum equivalent of the death penalty) when there is no other choice, and all other avenues have been exhausted.

Matthew, I never saw Laramie say to sedevacantists that they are going to hell, but he called them schismatic which if it is true means they are going to hell.

Yes, but as Matthew explained, he is telling a minority they are schismatic. Now if he were to tell a majority and the forum owner .... that's different!

By "dogmatic" I mean elevating the status of the papacy to a dogma, one way or the other (which is ridiculous).

Well ...

While I understand what you mean, the legitimacy of a Pope has always been classified by theologians as a dogmatic fact.  Unless the legitimacy of a Pope is known with the certainty of faith, no dogmas taught by the Pope can be known with the certainty of faith ... based on the principle peiorem partem semper sequitur conclusio.

That, ironically, however, is my biggest problem with sedevacantism.  I can get back to that later tonight.

You (and everyone else on the forum) are always welcome to report any offensive posts.

I personally think you're exaggerating Laramie's words, which is why you are publicly grumbling rather than sending me a PM with a link to offensive post(s).

Let's put it this way: I don't tolerate people saying "you're going to Hell" to other members -- which is what you claim Laramie said. So if he said that, I have to wonder why none of the SVs on CathInfo (who are supposed to be so numerous) reported it to me?

Anything that overlooked couldn't have been that offensive.

Like any civilized society, CathInfo's laws are not Draconian. That is to say, jaywalking doesn't merit the death penalty. There are a number of courses of action I can take that don't involve banning a member.

I am much quicker to deal out lesser "punishments" (i.e., deleting an offensive post, giving a warning, or taking a public stance) if that might solve the problem for now.

I only resort to banning (the forum equivalent of the death penalty) when there is no other choice, and all other avenues have been exhausted.

Like others have said he doesn't have to SAY it to, you know, say it.  I'm sure some of the dogmatic sedes you've banned never said those exact words to you either, but you brought that up in another post.

As for the bolded, you seem to have forgotten that we have exchanged PM's on this very topic.  In fact, IIRC you never responded to my last PM in that exchange.

As for doling out lesser punishments, when did that happen with LH?  Except for the most recent "If he's ever dangerous" threat (which clearly got his dander up), I don't recall you ever even giving him a warning.

And I would still like a response to my previous post.  Do you not care that 1/3 of your forum members are being labeled non-Catholic?  This is a Catholic website with Catholic forums.  I'm stunned that you don't see a problem here.  

Well, I'm glad somebody finally clarified that. I've been wondering what the heck these terms (as they are used on Cathinfo) meant for a long, long time.

However, now that the definitions have been mooted, I must say I don't think "dogmatic" is the right adjective to use here. It doesn't fit the definition that has been supplied for it. Furthermore, it needlessly confuses the vernacular and the technical usages of the term DOGMA and its cognates.

If we were using DOGMA in its vernacular sense, viz. stating an opinion as though it were a fact, then a "dogmatic sedevacantist" would simply be anybody who assumes sedevacantism is the given and actually existing state of affairs: one whose thinking and acting follows from that proposition. Obviously sedevacantists believe that their view is something more than a mere opinion; they could not have a clear conscience about it if they didn't. They believe it to be a fact and they form their intentions accordingly. If other people then accuse them of being "dogmatic" about their beliefs, it is because those others wish to have the whole question reduced to matter of opinion, to render it less certain and make room for the opposite point of view.

On the other hand, since Cathinfo is eminently a Catholic forum, a certain religious context has already been imposed a priori on all our discussions. The term DOGMA and its cognates have a precise technical meaning in religious contexts and it must be assumed that that is the meaning intended whenever they are used here. On that reading, a "dogmatic sedevacantist" would be somebody who believes it is an unquestionable teaching of Holy Mother Church that the Chair of St. Peter is empty; not just in the present crisis, but always and forever. A dogmatic sedevacantist binds sedevacantism on the entire Church for all time, since dogmas cannot change.

In all my life I have never met, seen, read about, or heard of anybody fitting that description. Hence I was rather confused about the threat posed by these so-called dogmatic sedevacantists. I wouldn't think such a bizarre point of view even existed! What is really meant by "dogmatic SVism" around here is somebody who A) Believes non-SVs are going to hell and B) Militantly pushes that belief on the forum pages. The correct terminology to apply in these cases, at least as it pertains to the first condition, would be exclusivist sedevacantist, or something like that.

I don't know any exclusivist SVs either. All the sedevacantists with whom I'm familiar do not believe that all non-SVs are going to hell, but that is because they know that God is merciful to those who err in good faith, not because they believe there is any room for doubt about the question. Apropos of that very subject, I am going to repeat and paraphrase something I wrote in an earlier thread.

Either Francis is the Pope or he isn't. There is no such thing as a Schrodinger's Pope who may or may not be the Vicar of Crist on Earth, depending on one's opinion. The disjunction has to be settled one way or the other. The question "Is Francis the Pope or not?" seeks to ascertain the truth or falsity of a statement about empirical reality. That makes it an epistemological problem, not a doctrinal problem. The pertinent question then becomes, "How do we know whether somebody is or isn't the Pope?"

We could go through a great deal of sophisticated back-and-forth regarding that question, but I think the crux of the matter is this: God sees the truth about all things. Of anything whatsoever that exists, the way it appears in the eyes of God is the way it "really is." God does not consider somebody who teaches heresy to be a true shepherd. Francis teaches heresy, therefore he is not a true shepherd in the sight of God. Therefore he is not the Pope, no matter how firmly settled his office would otherwise appear to be.

Based on the preceding argument, I affirm with certainty that Francis is not the Pope. He holds the office, but he is a PINO, a Pope In Name Only.* However, this affirmation has nothing to do with dogmatic truths of any kind. It is the outcome of a process of natural reasoning about empirical facts. And although it does contain a premise which refers to "the sight of God," this is a matter of natural theology not dogmatics. We need Revelation to tell us that God is a Trinity; we do not need Revelation to tell us that He plays no part in the operation of error. It should not be controversial that heretics do not represent God on earth. Sedevacantism, even when qualified as the "dogmatic" sort, is nothing but the dawning recognition that the Conciliar Popes are not God's representatives, which is something all Trads agree on.

*I guess Pino Bergoglio ain't just one of those newfangled Argentinian clarets.  :roll-laugh1:

Quote from: Matthew

1A. A dogmatic sedeplenist is calling 1/3 of the forum non-Catholic. A dogmatic sedevacantist is calling 2/3 of the forum AS WELL AS THE FORUM OWNER a non-Catholic. As I have mentioned before, no forum on the Internet permits a member to call the forum owner hell-bound, viscous names, etc. My open challenge to "show me just one" continues to go unanswered...

4chan

4chan? Seriously?  If that's the only forum where you can get away with that, I stand vindicated. Besides the obvious fact that I want to be CathInfo to be unlike 4chan in every possible and conceivable way.

That's such a low-end forum (from what I've heard -- never been there myself) that it doesn't matter if you can call the owner an a***** or something like that.

When nothing is sacred, you can't really offend someone. Right?

That's why we pretty much have to restrict things to religious forums -- where everyone there wants to save their soul.

Or even a regular forum -- something a bit higher-brow than 4chan (like, maybe a monster truck forum or something), where someone comes on and repeatedly states that everyone there, especially the owner, is a blankety-blank-blank-blank. On any forum where cussing isn't the usual language.

Something like that.

One last thing.  Per your Rules post in the General Discussion sub-forum:

You need not agree with everyone (or even most people) here, and you are free to disagree with the moderator. However, you have to consider CathInfo members your "fellow Catholics" -- you may strongly disagree with some of them, but you have to have enough humility to "live and let live" and "agree to disagree".