[Meg]

Why are we doing this again?

Sedes are supposed to have such advanced intelligence - so I'm sure you can figure it out!  :)

[Meg]

At least you realize this for what it is...pointless.Anyone's allowed to have their own opinion but, the facts are you and those modernists, which are by definition heretics, are part of the same "church" in communion with and subject to the same man, a heretic.

Pointless? But I thought you said it was fun?

Yeah, you think I'm a heretic. Right. You dogmatic sedes accuse non-sedes of being heretics, schismatics, liars, etc., so often and so frequently that it has lost all meaning. Do you really think that just because you dogmatic sedes accuse us, that we are going to actually believe you? Why should we? You have no authority over us.

[Meg]

It can still be fun and be pointless.
Just because we call you out on it all the time does not mean it's lost its meaning. After all, those accusations are true. I mean just look at the quote below; you said you wouldn't post about SV but you do. Then you asked people to remind you that you said you wouldn't post about it and when someone did (in this thread), you said that you would disregard his reminder. You lie and you do not follow through on what you say you will do, thereby making your word worthless.
Also, I never said I had authority over anyone, just trying to practice some charity because I care about the eternal destination of your soul.

If you believe that I lie (as opposed to changing my mind), and you also believe that my word is worthless, then you do not have to keep responding to my posts. 

I do not believe that you care about anyone's soul. Even your own. 

[Meg]

I keep responding because you keep bashing Sedevacantism (not sure what "dogmatic" sv is) so I thought I would keep defending that position. Plus, when you get backed into a corner, which often happens, you usually respond by saying that you don't have to respond or you don't want to respond. Since this is an obvious admission that you don't have a rebuttal to what's being said, and you have one of the loudest mouths on here, it's good for the lurkers to see the absurdity of the positions that people like you hold.

That's too bad.

You know perfectly well what dogmatic sedevacantism is. It's been discussed often enough here. 

You can accuse me of whatever you want, but I'll still keep pointing out that you're wrong. Even if, at times, I will not respond to your same old lines and accusations. 

[Neil Obstat]

.
How many sedes are on the forum right now?  Answer: Too many.
.

I only count the sedes with whom I have debated sedevacantism, and I know they are sedes. There are probably more of them than what I can count at any given time. It's not meant to be a precise account of how many sedes are on the forum at any particular time. But it gives a good indication.

.
What difference does it make anyway? Are you thinking of changing yourself, is that the problem? Maybe you'll change if it becomes really popular to change, so you can be popular, too.
.
Only a woman would have such a concern..... What's everyone else doing? What can I do to become more popular?
.

[Meg]

.
How many sedes are on the forum right now? Answer: Too many.
..
What difference does it make anyway? Are you thinking of changing yourself, is that the problem? Maybe you'll change if it becomes really popular to change, so you can be popular, too.
.
Only a woman would have such a concern..... What's everyone else doing? What can I do to become more popular?
.

Right, Neil. As if a thread like this would help win popularity. Actually, it's the opposite.

There's only a half sede logged on right now (Ladislaus).

Nice.

[Neil Obstat]

.
Sedes worrying about whether or not it's acceptable.
.
Or how may others there are around here like "me" -- am I going to be an outcast?
.
Oh, there's another one. Nice.................
.
No. Weird.
.

[MyrnaM]

You're all sede anyway, just look at how you speak about your pope, if you thought for a moment he was a true Vicar of Christ you would be careful or at least feel guilty, but U don't.  

[Matthew]

I had to ban Kazimierz because he outed himself as a "dogmatic sedevacantist" (he considers non-sedevacantists to be non-Catholic/schismatics) which is not a valid position, especially on CathInfo.

I don't put up with such lay-pope, "Dimond brothers"-esque condemnatory nonsense here on CathInfo.

[Matthew]

You're all sede anyway, just look at how you speak about your pope, if you thought for a moment he was a true Vicar of Christ you would be careful or at least feel guilty, but U don't.  

If I found out (by private revelation, in 20 years, after death, etc.) that it turns out these popes were indeed valid popes, I wouldn't even have to blush, much less head for the confessional.

Because I don't show personal disrespect -- or violate charity it any way -- regarding the man Jorge Bergoglio, calling him childish names, etc. *cough* Novus Ordo Watch *cough* Traditio *cough*

In short, I don't hate him. You can taste the hatred on those websites I mentioned.

He is a menace to the Faith, and that is not something to be ignored. I can't play around with my own faith, or the faith of those in my charge. Salvation is not a game. I have to do what I have to do.

What I *don't* have to do is make it personal, or nurture hatred towards the men who are (objectively speaking) doing the devil's work.

If/when Jorge Bergoglio inches forward to peer into the abyss of Hell, it would give me no pleasure whatsoever to see his soul condemned to the flames. It would still be a shame, a total waste of a soul that could have glorified God forever.

For me, it's all about the Faith. I will "resist him to the face" like St. Paul did to St. Peter -- but with all respect, and keeping it very much NOT personal, but instead about doctrine.

[MyrnaM]

If I found out (by private revelation, in 20 years, after death, etc.) that it turns out these popes were indeed valid popes, I wouldn't even have to blush, much less head for the confessional.

Because I don't show personal disrespect -- or violate charity it any way -- regarding the man Jorge Bergoglio, calling him childish names, etc. *cough* Novus Ordo Watch *cough* Traditio *cough*

In short, I don't hate him. You can taste the hatred on those websites I mentioned.

He is a menace to the Faith, and that is not something to be ignored. I can't play around with my own faith, or the faith of those in my charge. Salvation is not a game. I have to do what I have to do.

What I *don't* have to do is make it personal, or nurture hatred towards the men who are (objectively speaking) doing the devil's work.

If/when Jorge Bergoglio inches forward to peer into the abyss of Hell, it would give me no pleasure whatsoever to see his soul condemned to the flames. It would still be a shame, a total waste of a soul that could have glorified God forever.

For me, it's all about the Faith. I will "resist him to the face" like St. Paul did to St. Peter -- but with all respect, and keeping it very much NOT personal, but instead about doctrine.

I don't read Novus Ordo Watch nor Traditio, and I am surprised that you do!

Your right, positively right it should never give anyone pleasure thinking that another human is burning in Hell, and forever.  Some traditional Catholics seem to take pleasure in the idea the Jєωs are all in Hell.

Jesus Christ greatest suffering in the garden just before He was crucified was seeing the billions upon billions of souls not accepting His sacrifice and that alone should bring tears to anyone with a heart.  His suffering over the loss of one soul was greater than His physical pain He suffered for us, it is said.  In Catholic school, the nuns would explain to us, that when He saw the faces of the first man, Adam till the last man, and so many not accepting His sacrifice caused Him to sweat blood. 
 
If ever I stand before God and find the conciliar popes were indeed valid, I know God's mercy would never hold me accountable for that because He knows my loyalty to the Papacy was never in question.  Because it wasn't.  I do fear for those who have made excuses for these enemies of God and should have known better, no one has ever explained to me here or anywhere how the Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, the breaking of the First Commandment.
  
Can you, Matthew?

[Neil Obstat]

I don't read Novus Ordo Watch nor Traditio, and I am surprised that you do!

.
He didn't actually say that he reads them (present tense). He has read them in the past but they've been consistently the same for years so why would they have changed suddenly? If Traditio had suddenly changed all the forums would be talking about it. And Nov.Ord.Wat. is so locked into granny low, there's no WAY they're going to change. Hey, they're still using Windows 3.1!!
.

Your right, positively right it should never give anyone pleasure thinking that another human is burning in Hell, and forever.  Some traditional Catholics seem to take pleasure in the idea the Jєωs are all in Hell.

Jesus Christ greatest suffering in the garden just before He was crucified was seeing the billions upon billions of souls not accepting His sacrifice and that alone should bring tears to anyone with a heart.  His suffering over the loss of one soul was greater than His physical pain He suffered for us, it is said.  In Catholic school, the nuns would explain to us, that when He saw the faces of the first man, Adam till the last man, and so many not accepting His sacrifice caused Him to sweat blood. 

If ever I stand before God and find the conciliar popes were indeed valid, I know God's mercy would never hold me accountable for that because He knows my loyalty to the Papacy was never in question.  Because it wasn't.  I do fear for those who have made excuses for these enemies of God and should have known better, no one has ever explained to me here or anywhere how the Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, the breaking of the First Commandment.
 
Can you, Matthew?

.
You should read Mystery of Iniquity. It's author sought to answer your question, "...how the Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, the breaking of the First Commandment." Perhaps you'd like to know what he found. 
.
After you're done, perhaps you'd like to know the next phase.
.

[Alcuin]

You're all sede anyway, just look at how you speak about your pope, if you thought for a moment he was a true Vicar of Christ you would be careful or at least feel guilty, but U don't.  

Its not that we're all Sede. It really comes down to the fact that in the practical order most here don't consider the current occupant in Rome as a spiritual father in the faith.
Effectively we are independent of Rome's authority.

[2Vermont]

I had to ban Kazimierz because he outed himself as a "dogmatic sedevacantist" (he considers non-sedevacantists to be non-Catholic/schismatics) which is not a valid position, especially on CathInfo.

I don't put up with such lay-pope, "Dimond brothers"-esque condemnatory nonsense here on CathInfo.

Meg doesn't think sedevacantists are Catholic.  Is that a valid position on CathInfo?  If so, why?  If not, why is she allowed to continue her anti-Catholic postings such as the following found on another thread?

Sometimes people can't see the obvious: that it's the Catholic faith you're giving them, rather than the sedevacantist faith (which isn't the Catholic faith).

[2Vermont]

.... no one has ever explained to me here or anywhere how the Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, the breaking of the First Commandment.
  

Don't get confused Myrna. We can all break God's laws...that's called sinning.