I'm glad you're amused.  Okay not, really.

What I mean is, the people are so apathetic because of so many factors (hugely medicated, desensitized, et cetera) that I can't see this happening for a good long time, but if someone wanted to do it tomorrow with a large angry mob, I would be in that large angry mob.

 :smile:

Let me try to rephrase...

When we look back at early Christianity, what is striking about it?  Perhaps most obvious is the fact that, despite their prosecution, they did not start a war, did not respond in violence.  They were murdered, enslaved, imprisoned, exiled, yet they did not 'rally the troops' and march on the governing powers, so to speak.  It was their witness and our Lord (through Constantine Divine intervention,) that eventually freed them from roman tyranny.

If we contrast the success of those early witnesses to the crusades, we can see that, although some may label the crusades as successful on certain points, they did not achieve the goals they had originally intended.  The military approach was not so blatantly successful.

I won't say that armed revolt and defense will never be necessary, but I doubt the Fathers of our Faith would applaud such action, and we should model them in our attempt to defeat the errors creeping into the Lord's Church.

After all...

"Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

Matthew 26:25

I have to agree with Spouse of Jesus; there was a reason that Christ said, "Judge not, so that you may not be judged." Back in the times of Christ, the Medieval ages, etc, information was not as accessible as it is today; people could be told one thing and go on for years before someone comes along to correct them. I am sure this is how kings were overthrown; all it takes is a rumor to make a just king a tyrant; a good-willed government a menace. The number of factors that come into play with any amount of judgement involved is nearly infinite; a thousand possible motives, a thousand possible situations, a thousand possible questions. Today, we have the internet, which is a tool that can reach the entire world; entire peoples can be subject to the information that they see, whehter it is true or not. This is incredible power. It's actually not much different from what we have today; instead of being misled through ignorance, as we were thousands of years ago, we are now being misled with information that is either biased, misleading, or outright false. All these factors come into play; everything we read on the internet was written by someone else, whose motive it is impossible to realize. What one writes about another is not neccessarily true. At times, it is even impossible to know what your own true motives are, this is why paul (I believe it's him) said he judged no man, not even himself. This is why I cannot take the Sedevecante argument; it leads one into a world of infinite possibilities, if you really think about it.

I think that Lybus does not have a position, but that he is "sitting on the fence" so to speak, so it would be wise to refrain from condemning him until he has shown that he is of bad will. It does not do well to endear anyone to your cause if you "turn them off" so to speak with your harsh words.

And it's not 'my cause', it the THE cause.

Excuse me Vladimir, but are we talking about the same post?

Your understanding of this Scripture passage is incomplete, young man.  You only quoted the first part of it (St. Matthew 7:1).

You ignored the fact that he is talking about people who judge others HYPOCRITICALLY (St. Matthew 7:2-4).

And you completely left out the part where Christ exhorts people to JUDGE THEMSELVES so that they will be fit to JUDGE OTHERS (Matthew 7:5).

So basically, you are using an incomplete and erroneous understanding of this teaching from the Gospel in a vain attempt to justify your false position.

Where in my post is the word "condemn" or "heretic"?

Am I right or wrong that to hold Benedict XVI as a pope is a false position?

Am I right or am I wrong that his understanding of St. Matthew 7 was limited to one verse, and thus ignored the context of the teaching?

Am I right or am I wrong that using an incorrect understanding of Scripture to justify any position is done in vain?

And if there is nothing false in my post, then why are you accusing me of harshness?

For ease of reference here is the entire teaching of Jesus Christ, which Lybus began to present:

Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.