[Augstine Baker]

If you like to use inflammatory language and accuse people of things before you really understand what those things are, call Popes heretics and stuff like that, isn't that sort of thing Sede-talk and reserved for the "crisis in the Church" area?

If this were a Sedevacantist forum, I wouldn't even bother, but I'm a fervent supporter of all Traditionalist societies, individuals and sites throughout the Church.

There are quite a few here who are extremely provincial and have trouble thinking outside the walls of their chapel and tiny social groups where they are willing to submit themselves to narrow and small-minded mentalities.

I'm assuming that the forum owner doesn't mind that I do that and I'll continue to do so whether or not some of the forum members here like it or not.


Also, I'm assuming that these rules still apply or have some need of clarification?

In addition to these main rules, CathInfo requires members [Sedevacantists]  to use the "Crisis in the Church" subforum for all discussion regarding the Pope, conciliar church, Vatican II, sedevacantism, etc. Why? Some members are happy and stable where they are as Catholics, and have no desire to shake up their whole life (constantly) by going back to the drawing board. They have moved on, and wish to devote their time to other matters, including such lofty and necessary topics as the spiritual life, and Catholic life in the modern world. Such Catholics will have their wishes honored here. Any Crisis-related posts found outside the "Crisis" subforum will be moved at the moderator's discretion.

Catholics who don't want to argue about sedevacantism, etc. are encouraged to avoid the Crisis in the Church forum, so that you will enjoy your time here at CathInfo!

As a footnote, the "official position" of CathInfo regarding the Crisis in the Church is the SSPX position. (Not that it really matters -- see Rule #2) CathInfo is also officially behind Bishop Williamson, and has no disagreement with anything he has said publicly or in private.

[Gregory I]

I think that's fair. But don't expect silence if you makes some sort of sideways accusation or slam. If you bring it up, it will be followed up.

But I will say nothing about it in General.

[Augstine Baker]

I think that's fair. But don't expect silence if you makes some sort of sideways accusation or slam. If you bring it up, it will be followed up.

But I will say nothing about it in General.

I don't bring it up, it gets brought up all the time here.

Assuming this is an SSPX forum, the hierarchy is still the Catholic hierarchy and the Pope is still the Pope.

I have a lot more confidence in this position and the leadership of the SSPX than I do a very slender percentage of people [theological hobbyists and internet Bishops]  with extremely different views who bicker mostly among themselves and have practically no visible hierarchy.

That Raoul guy and the others trash the SSPX all the time, and they're not even thoughtful about it.

You know what, on second thought, let them rant on.  I think they do more damage to Sedevacantism than they know, which is a good thing, because it's a dangerous, divisive, rebellious and heretical position to hold.

 

[Raoul76]

Did you become the site moderator while I wasn't looking?  You must think you have a lot more credibility here than you actually do, to speak so arrogantly.

[roscoe]

I think that's fair. But don't expect silence if you makes some sort of sideways accusation or slam. If you bring it up, it will be followed up.

But I will say nothing about it in General.

I don't bring it up, it gets brought up all the time here.

Assuming this is an SSPX forum, the hierarchy is still the Catholic hierarchy and the Pope is still the Pope.

I have a lot more confidence in this position and the leadership of the SSPX than I do a very slender percentage of people [theological hobbyists and internet Bishops]  with extremely different views who bicker mostly among themselves and have practically no visible hierarchy.

That Raoul guy and the others trash the SSPX all the time, and they're not even thoughtful about it.

You know what, on second thought, let them rant on.  I think they do more damage to Sedevacantism than they know, which is a good thing, because it's a dangerous, divisive, rebellious and heretical position to hold.

 

There is No Such Thing as ' Sedevacantism'.

[Sigismund]

Matthew is the final judge of what belongs where.  If he decides to allow these discussions on multiple sub forums, that is his business.  If it were my forum, I would ban posters of racist idiocy, paranoid anti-Semitism, and advocates of giving illegal drugs to mentally ill children a lot faster htan sede's of any stripe, but hey, it's not my forum.

 :smile:

[SeanJohnson]

   Well, as long as we're all airing it out here and now, my pet peeves are:

1) Revolvers (unless in bear country);
2) Tradcuмenism (as long as we all oppose V2, that is all that matters, even if we contradict eachother like Prots);
3) People who put the twisty-ties on the bread bag (Just give that puppy a spin and fold it under!);
4) People quoting from manuals who have never had traditional, systematic philosophical and theological training;
5) People who chew food with their mouths open, popping and smacking like a cow;
6) The controlled media talking about the media as though they were not part of it;
7) traditio.com

[MyrnaM]

I think that's fair. But don't expect silence if you makes some sort of sideways accusation or slam. If you bring it up, it will be followed up.

But I will say nothing about it in General.

I don't bring it up, it gets brought up all the time here.

Assuming this is an SSPX forum, the hierarchy is still the Catholic hierarchy and the Pope is still the Pope.

I have a lot more confidence in this position and the leadership of the SSPX than I do a very slender percentage of people [theological hobbyists and internet Bishops]  with extremely different views who bicker mostly among themselves and have practically no visible hierarchy.

That Raoul guy and the others trash the SSPX all the time, and they're not even thoughtful about it.

You know what, on second thought, let them rant on.  I think they do more damage to Sedevacantism than they know, which is a good thing, because it's a dangerous, divisive, rebellious and heretical position to hold.

 

There is No Such Thing as ' Sedevacantism'.

You might be more correct than you realize roscoe, we are Roman Catholics who believe in the over 250 popes in past history, while a few here think we need only follow the past few "popes"; impossible to follow both, therefore we call ourselves  sedevacantist because we  know that.    

[Sigismund]

  Well, as long as we're all airing it out here and now, my pet peeves are:

1) Revolvers (unless in bear country);
2) Tradcuмenism (as long as we all oppose V2, that is all that matters, even if we contradict eachother like Prots);
3) People who put the twisty-ties on the bread bag (Just give that puppy a spin and fold it under!);
4) People quoting from manuals who have never had traditional, systematic philosophical and theological training;
5) People who chew food with their mouths open, popping and smacking like a cow;
6) The controlled media talking about the media as though they were not part of it;
7) traditio.com

I hate those twisty ties.  I hate them SO much...... :dwarf:

 :wink:

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

The forum rules say that discussion of sedevacantism is for the crisis section. Nowhere do the rules say that sedes must post ONLY in the crisis section.

I agree with Raoul. Quit acting like you own this place, Augustine Baker.

[Matthew]

You know what, on second thought, let them rant on.  I think they do more damage to Sedevacantism than they know, which is a good thing, because it's a dangerous, divisive, rebellious and heretical position to hold.
 

You forgot "useless" and "simplistic".

[Matthew]

The forum rules say that discussion of sedevacantism is for the crisis section. Nowhere do the rules say that sedes must post ONLY in the crisis section.

Just to clarify (since this was far from clear the first time I read it):

Sedes are not personally banished to the Crisis sub-forum. They can post in any other sub-forum, as long as they leave Sedevacantism out of their discussions.

As an aside: Those who can't discuss football or favorite recipes without bringing up Sedevacantism might reconsider their membership here. Such persons are obsessed and really don't belong here.


It's almost as ridiculous as the modern world's fixation with sex -- an activity that comprises a microscopic percentage of a typical human life, but the modern world makes everything revolve around it: Choice of job, appearance, car, social activities, etc.

All discussion of legitimacy of Popes -- anything touching on Sedevacantism -- must go in the Crisis sub-forum ONLY.

[Augustinian]

You know what, on second thought, let them rant on.  I think they do more damage to Sedevacantism than they know, which is a good thing, because it's a dangerous, divisive, rebellious and heretical position to hold.
 

You forgot "useless" and "simplistic".

You're right; truth is complicated and gray. It involves lots of mental gymnastics and excuses. Thank God for the clear and consistent position of the SSPX.

[Augstine Baker]

You know what, on second thought, let them rant on.  I think they do more damage to Sedevacantism than they know, which is a good thing, because it's a dangerous, divisive, rebellious and heretical position to hold.
 

You forgot "useless" and "simplistic".

You're right; truth is complicated and gray. It involves lots of mental gymnastics and excuses. Thank God for the clear and consistent position of the SSPX.

Stop accusing the SSPX of bad faith.  

[MyrnaM]

"simplistic"  Reminds me of a story I heard in Catholic school, when the school still taught ALL the Faith.  The nuns told us how Our Lady of Fatima came and gave a peace plan from Heaven to earth, "pray the Rosary every day and that we must fulfill the duties of our state in life day by day".  The Modernist said that was too simple to work.  

Nothing wrong with simplistic in my book.

As far as "useless" goes, nothing more useless than confusion as Traditional Catholics are today, should we or shouldn't we believe we have a pope, resulting with having closet sedevancists; speaking bad about their pope from the pulpit while hanging pictures of him within the vestibule.  I wonder what little children  are learning from that example.

Whoever started this thread should ask it be moved to the crisis section, would be my suggestion.