I came across this quote which describes the Sedevacantist movement to a tee...

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Davies/Davies%20-%20Matt.htm

Michael Davies was a man who demonstrated that leadership involves knowing when to advance as well as when to hold the ground. And hold his ground he did, even while extremist traditionalists rushed past him, leering at him and mocking his “centrism”, just before they overran the front line and rushed straight off the battlefield into the fever swamps of irrelevancy—precisely where the Modernist revolutionaries wanted all Traditional Catholics to wind up… out of the Church and well out of their way.

]

How long have you been around, stevus?  I am just trying to ascertain how much real experience you have with living, breathing SVs, Traddieland as a whole, etc.  The fact that you did not even know about the striking opposition between Mortalium animos and the post-V2 insanities makes me wonder about things like your age, background, when/how you came to Traddieland, etc.

gladius_veritatis said:

How long have you been around, stevus?  I am just trying to ascertain how much real experience you have with living, breathing SVs, Traddieland as a whole, etc.  The fact that you did not even know about the striking opposition between Mortalium animos and the post-V2 insanities makes me wonder about things like your age, background, when/how you came to Traddieland, etc.

He reminds me of one of those guys floating around Hollywood, professionals in other fields, wealthy ranchers or doctors or what have you, who have "an idea for a screenplay," which is usually something about a rancher or doctor who breaks into Hollywood... ( I don't know if I ever met this type, but I know they exist ).

He has this air of blind confidence in himself that may be due to success in his chosen field.  But he doesn't see that he is completely at a loss when it comes to the debate on the crisis, having only a limited grasp of the essentials, if that.  He may be good at his day job, he may even be trying to use the same tools here, but it doesn't work.

Maybe he got inspired hearing an SSPX sermon against sedevacantism and thought he would try to help out by going on the attack on the Internet, thinking "Hey, I'm a lawyer, I can do this."  

... while extremist traditionalists rushed past him, leering at him and mocking his “centrism”,

Ha ha, nice communistic use of denigrating buzzwords.  

The EXTREME sedevacantist RUSHED past the poor SSPX-type, LEERING AND MOCKING.  

Have you ever tried to rush while leering at the same time?  It's hard on the back, I don't recommend it.

Dude, I am an ex-tr-re-m-e sedevacantist, my extreme lifestyle also includes bungee jumping and snowboarding on really big mountains, while drinking Mountain Dew...

I think something that most people here learned during the big arguments that took place between the sedes and non-sedes last summer was not to overly-criticize either side. Keep it clean, use constructive criticism, but don't launch ad hominemattacks or use slander. Maybe it's because he wasn't posting at the time these arguments took place, but it's clear that stevus should defend his stance in a kind matter, not go around attacking the sedes.

If you look at me, Matthew, Catholic Samurai, etc. we don't attack the character of the sedes. We defend our stance yet show respect for the sede's stance and whenever we see something ridiculous posted by one of the dogmatic sedes we point it out. It's clear that stevus loves to debate, but perhaps his love for it is unhealthy. He's gone as far as to ask for a sub-forum where sedes aren't allowed to post. Yet he seems to prefer to argue with neo-Caths. It is easy to beat them during debate since they are so far from the truth, yet they don't like Tradition. The sedes at least realize there is a crisis. I'd much rather have sedes on here than modernists.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that stevus should stop trying to paint the sedes as naive or whatever. That's not a good way to act to a fellow Traditional Catholic. And I must admit that while stevus gets that there is a crisis in the Church, he doesn't seem to get the full picture as far as world-view. To him, Obama is a valid president, 9/11 was the act of Muslims and terrorists, the h0Ɩ0cαųst was for real, etc. Bottom line is that stevus should stop the bickering and show more respect. This is a Traditional Catholic forum, we should be acing like Trads, not fighting all the time.

So now sedevacantism is mental illness? Perhaps I run the risk of sounding like a sede, but that is plain ridiculous. Stevus, there may very well come a day when the sede stance must be taken. In the mean time, we don't have to agree with the sede stance, but we must respect it. So my advice to you is to lay off the criticism. By the way, Raoul didn't use ad hominem attacks when replying to you.

I believe Sede-ism breeds these things, along with other forms of mental illness.

You know what I think breeds mental illness? Pride in general. And there are plenty of non-sedes who have this mental disorder.

Quote from: stevusmagnus

I believe Sede-ism breeds these things, along with other forms of mental illness.

You know what I think breeds mental illness? Pride in general. And there are plenty of non-sedes who have this mental disorder.

There is no greater pride I know of than daring to personally judge the Supreme Pontiff.