Author Topic: If you are Anti-SSPX (Read 7036 times)

Raoul76 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 16, 2010, 02:30:22 AM »

R76 said:

Quote

Cecelia never said that Ratzinger's "papacy" or lack thereof was part of immutable Catholic truth,

Okay, I missed the first line of her post somehow. I knew I shouldn't have said anything. This is just the kind of battle sophists love to fight, preying on slip-ups. Anyway, Caminus' post is still full of sophistry.

Cecilia said:

Quote

Catholic truth is immutable. Either the Benedict XVI is the Pope or he is not...it is important for every catholic to know who the Pope is. There cannot be a conciliar church, and a traditional church; there is only one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. And we recognise this by the possession of the 4 marks.

Read this in context with the rest of her post. Catholic truth is immutable. But saying there can be one head of two churches is not Catholic truth. Saying that you can "convert Rome" is not Catholic truth.

There are certain immutable Catholic truths that are being implicitly denied by SSPX, and these have to do with the protection of the Holy Ghost accorded to Peter and his successors ( infallibility ), which the Popes of the VII ape have transgressed. I actually haven't checked to see if Ratzinger's encyclicals have any heresy. But even if Ratzinger had a valid election, he is within a false Church, having accepted its false Magisterium. He was also a public heretic before and after his election which disqualifies him according to cuм Ex Apostolatus.

Caminus is trying to make it look like she is elevating Ratzinger's papacy to a metaphysical truth fallen from heaven, divine revelation. No, but there are certain divine revelations that are being SECONDARILY denied, as a consequence of accepting Ratzinger as Pope.

Caminus said:

Quote

"You really need to brush up on your language it is very abusive."

Surely you jest.

Cecelia · « **Reply #46 on:** July 16, 2010, 02:35:11 AM »

Raoul said:

Quote

Caminus said:
Quote:
You are so confused it isn't even funny anymore. If the fact of Benedict's papacy was part of "immutable catholic truth" then his papacy would have no end, it would exist as a universal, abstract truth transcending time and place. It would be thrust into the realm of speculative truth ceasing to be a contingent fact.

Matthew said:
Quote:
Well said, and well said.

I wasn't going to post here anymore for a while, but I just want to briefly defend Cecilia.

Almost every trick of the sophist is here in Caminus' post. Making Cecelia say what she didn't say ( deformation ) setting up his straw man ( divagation ), and then throwing up a smokescreen ( obscuration ).

Caminus always asks me for proof of his sophistry, but lacking

Quote

the intestinal fortitude to read through his previous posts, I decided to wait, knowing it was only a matter of time before he did what he did best once again -- evading, obscuring, and falsifying. Here it is.

Cecelia never said that Ratzinger's "papacy" or lack thereof was part of immutable Catholic truth, so the rest of your ravings are pointless. She just said that the question of whether we have a Pope in Rome is of the utmost importance, and it is.

It's not Cecelia with her simple English and clearly-laid out facts who is being emotional, believe me. And she is not stepping out of her place by trying to save her soul.

Thank you :applause:

I do not know why being a woman has anything to do with what has been written? It has nothing to do with the issues brought up, which do not seem to be able to be answered except in an ad hominem way.

This is dishonest. Why not just address the issues?

It reminds me of a period of time 5 or 6 years ago. Family members (ardent SSPXers) were trying to make us change our beliefs regarding the vacancy of Peter. They got hold of a very close friend of theirs who frequented an SSPX chapel in US and who was regarded as a "saint". They knew he knew his faith, and was a very pious and holy man. He was an SSPXer at the time, as we were. He was a very intelligent man...this also being a big factor as they knew his intellectual prowess was well beyond ours (ie. my husband and myself). So we corresponded and also telephoned for about 6 months. To the great surprise and disbelief of our family members, this man had such goodwill and intellectual honesty that he completely changed his postion and has never looked back.

He has remained a very good friend...yet we have never met.

Food for honest thought?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #47 on:** July 16, 2010, 02:43:14 AM »

Sorry I had to backtrack a little, but I didn't want to leave the door open for another attack. I somehow didn't see your "immutable Catholic truth" line that Caminus stretched and distorted, to make it look like you were trying to make Ratzinger's papacy or lack thereof part of the deposit of faith which ended with the Apostles.

What a smokescreen, what a sham. What incredible bad faith this man has. I can't believe I'm the only one trying to expose him for a crock.

I have not witnessed anyone in SSPX having such a Eureka moment. I am hoping for my friend from this site Alex, who goes to an indie trad chapel, to one day have it, but until then I do think she's a good Catholic, brimming with charity. She just believes the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra and stops there, she doesn't want to know anymore at the moment. One must be patient.

SJB · « **Reply #48 on:** July 16, 2010, 08:16:49 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

And another problem you have is confusing the man with the office. You seem to think that men become perfect in all virtue upon ascending to the Papal throne. The mere thought of an imperfect Pope seems to you a metaphysical impossibility. Thus, you say that no one can convert him from his errors because a true pope, so you think, could never err in any way. That is a perversion of catholic doctrine. The doctrine of infallibility has been exaggerated and distorted in your mind and thus you are a sedevacantist because of it, at least in part.

Caminus, you have the problem of separating the man from his office. You also falsely attribute the idea that "a true pope, so you think, could never err in any way" to sedevacantists. Nobody I know thinks that and it has been refuted many times but you keep repeating it anyway.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #49 on:** July 16, 2010, 08:19:43 AM »

It grieves me to see particular SSPX'ers post such horror, I was reading on that thread where SV are not allowed to post and a registered member who is allowed to post there, said when he realizes someone is SV he automatically puts them on ignore. He in fact concludes that we are not Catholic, and in my opinion he/she should be banned, not Dawn nor Patman.

Quote

Raoul ---><<<<Read this in context with the rest of her post. Catholic truth is immutable. But truth.saying there can be one head of two churches is not Catholic Saying that you can "convert Rome" is not Catholic truth.

Especially the bolded part above, this I could never understand, just this sentence is worth pondering.

I do consider SSPX to be Catholic as I stated but feel an SV position is worth defending.

BTW... Matthew, our priest on "Mothers Day" also gave a sermon much about what you said, about woman. I don't take that as an insult, we are different. God made us so. One of the reasons why the world is so messed up is when women try to act like a man or man like a woman.

Caminus · « **Reply #50 on:** July 16, 2010, 12:07:58 PM »

Quote

I knew I shouldn't have said anything

That's okay, we all make mistakes. The point was not that she explicitly stated that his claim to the papacy is strictly of divine revelation. The problem was that in effect she is saying so by classing this fact among 'immutable truths of the catholic faith.' She is giving the dogmatic fact of a papal claimant a differing quality. This is obviously an abuse of language designed to imply that the faith hinges on the person of the pope. Thus, she thinks that anyone who wrongly identifies the pope is not Catholic. That is why her sedevacantism has become an article of faith, because of a serious confusion of terms.

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with basic philosophic truth understands that an error regarding a question of fact is of an entirely different order than one who errs in questions of principle or law.

Alexandria · « **Reply #51 on:** July 16, 2010, 12:10:17 PM »

Myrna said:

Quote

It grieves me to see particular SSPX'ers post such horror, I was reading on that thread where SV are not allowed to post and a registered member who is allowed to post there, said when he realizes someone is SV he automatically puts them on ignore. He in fact concludes that we are not Catholic, and in my opinion he/she should be banned, not Dawn nor Patman.

[/b]

Myrna, get used to the injustice. We were told yesterday in no uncertain terms that we are second class citizens here and will be treated as such. So, to the back of the bus with you!! :wink:

Caminus · « **Reply #52 on:** July 16, 2010, 12:12:19 PM »

Quote

It reminds me of a period of time 5 or 6 years ago. Family members (ardent SSPXers) were trying to make us change our beliefs regarding the vacancy of Peter. They got hold of a very close friend of theirs who frequented an SSPX chapel in US and who was regarded as a "saint". They knew he knew his faith, and was a very pious and holy man. He was an SSPXer at the time, as we were. He was a very intelligent man...this also being a big factor as they knew his intellectual prowess was well beyond ours (ie. my husband and myself). So we corresponded and also telephoned for about 6 months. To the great surprise and disbelief of our family members, this man had such goodwill and intellectual honesty that he completely changed his postion and has never looked back.

I don't know about food for 'honest' thought, but it was certainly fare for the self-serving. I suppose if he hadn't "converted" to sedevacantism you would simply have reserved your pity for him. I also note your highly manipulative exaltation of his virtues which only serves to redound to your glory. One suspects whether you would have detailed his high virtue if he hadn't ended in forming the same opinion that you entertain.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #53 on:** July 16, 2010, 01:44:48 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

It grieves me to see particular SSPX'ers post such horror, I was reading on that thread where SV are not allowed to post and a registered member who is allowed to post there, said when he realizes someone is SV he automatically puts them on ignore. He in fact concludes that we are not Catholic, and in my opinion he/she should be banned, not Dawn nor Patman.

Quote
Raoul ---><<<<Read this in context with the rest of her post. Catholic truth is immutable. But truth.saying there can be one head of two churches is not Catholic Saying that you can "convert Rome" is not Catholic truth.

Especially the bolded part above, this I could never understand, just this sentence is worth pondering.

I do consider SSPX to be Catholic as I stated but feel an SV position is worth defending.

BTW... Matthew, our priest on "Mothers Day" also gave a sermon much about what you said, about woman. I don't take that as an insult, we are different. God made us so. One of the reasons why the world is so messed up is when women try to act like a man or man like a woman.

Personally, I think sedes being on this forum is not at all a bad thing. We're all Catholic, as you said. Dawn was nice, but I think he was banned for saying mean things to Matthew, I think that's what Patman was banned for, too. I don't consider Matthew to be bias by banning them though. He allows sedes to post on here at free will, I think they were just saying some things they shouldn't have, I don't know. Dawn will be back in September, not sure about Patman.

I think sedes being on this forum beats the daylight out of having modernists like on CAF. I don't put anybody on ignore here whether they're sede or not, I like reading everyone's posts. The only person I would consider putting on ignore would be CM, though he won't be back for a little while. I honestly didn't get to see many of his posts, I just know he declared way too many Popes as Anti-Popes and one poster said CM claimed himself to be Pope.

Anyway, Benedict is mostly the head of the counter-fit Church. He's running the true Church too, but I think what he's trying to do is merge them into one.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #54 on:** July 16, 2010, 02:27:33 PM »

Quote

Spiritus ----> said . . . Dawn was nice, but I think he was banned for saying mean things to Matthew, I think that's what Patman was banned for, too. I don't consider Matthew to be bias by banning them though. He allows sedes to post on here at free will, I think they were just saying some things they shouldn't have, I don't know. Dawn will be back in September, not sure about Patman.

Yes, and Dawn said many mean things to me too, plus worse she said many many mean things abour CMRI, but so what!
Are we better than Jesus Christ, look what they said to Him. That is the way I feel anyway. Sorry Matthew, but I don't like to see anyone banned, just because they were human and lost their cool.

I do agree with banning, of people who put those awful obnixious images on here a bit ago, or if someone was abusing with :cussing:. . . . . . . .

but we are all human after all.

Matthew · « **Reply #55 on:** July 16, 2010, 02:35:16 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Myrna said:

Quote
It grieves me to see particular SSPX'ers post such horror, I was reading on that thread where SV are not allowed to post and a registered member who is allowed to post there, said when he realizes someone is SV he automatically puts them on ignore. He in fact concludes that we are not Catholic, and in my opinion he/she should be banned, not Dawn nor Patman.
[/b]

Myrna, get used to the injustice. We were told yesterday in no uncertain terms that we are second class citizens here and will be treated as such. So, to the back of the bus with you!! :wink:

I was a bit upset when I banned Alexandria, but I shouldn't let emotion drive my moderating style. Here is what I *should* have said:

You are the *only* member to complain about how "sedevacantists are treated as 2nd class citizens here".

No one's forcing you to be here. I'm not abusing you, I'm not mistreating you, I'm not torturing you.

Proof?

You're coming here happily, of your own free will. You clearly like it here. But you also like to complain.

I allow everyone to post here, and there isn't any "rank" of my devising. If anything, rank is based on seniority here.

If you wouldn't obsess about how SSPX *should be* 2nd class, you wouldn't be upset when I was forced to reply "No, if anything SSPX would be 1st class around here". Get what I'm saying?

There are no Sedevacantist ghettoes here. I don't make Sedes wear an "Empty chair" arm badge (like Hitler required for gαys, jews, etc.)

Matthew

Raoul76 · « **Reply #56 on:** July 16, 2010, 05:04:25 PM »

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 can see that Dawn posted in a thread where she wasn't supposed to. I think it's going too far to ban her for a month and a half, but that's your call. She did defy a fair request/command. But Alexandria did nothing except quote your very own words.

You are going Red Queen all over the place here -- "OFF WITH HER HEAD!" Calm down and think, or you will find yourself with a ghost town on your hands.

Caminus · « **Reply #57 on:** July 16, 2010, 05:18:27 PM »

I like the arm band idea.

Cecelia · « **Reply #58 on:** July 16, 2010, 05:36:27 PM »

Quote

Quote:
It reminds me of a period of time 5 or 6 years ago. Family members (ardent SSPXers) were trying to make us change our beliefs regarding the vacancy of Peter. They got hold of a very close friend of theirs who frequented an SSPX chapel in US and who was regarded as a "saint". They knew he knew his faith, and was a very pious and holy man. He was an SSPXer at the time, as we were. He was a very intelligent man...this also being a big factor as they knew his intellectual prowess was well beyond ours (ie. my husband and myself). So we corresponded and also telephoned for about 6 months. To the great surprise and disbelief of our family members, this man had such goodwill and intellectual honesty that he completely changed his postion and has never looked back.

Quote
Caminus quote:
I don't know about food for 'honest' thought, but it was certainly fare for the self-serving. I suppose if he hadn't "converted" to sedevacantism you would simply have reserved your pity for him. I also note your highly manipulative exaltation of his virtues which only serves to redound to your glory. One suspects whether you would have detailed his high virtue if he hadn't ended in forming the same opinion that you entertain.

You are an unusual chap, Caminus, as it appears you do not want to know the truth, just twist whatever facts may appear to hide the truth of what that person presents. This is a most unusual way for a catholic to act, but it takes all sorts.

A person who has true charity will always want to find the truth and help another to find the truth. This man mentioned above, knew both positions were not correct. Hence if both parties who are discussing the faith, have goodwill, then healthy, honest debate will ensue. A person with goodwill will always show readiness to recant when the true catholic position is presented. Obviously in the end agreement over these fundamental teachings will be met. So your scenario, Caminus, would not eventuate in the above case.

Caminus · « **Reply #59 on:** July 16, 2010, 05:42:59 PM »

Yes, good will is necessary and in the question of ad hominem, the tables can always be turned -- where is your good will?