I don't agree with sedevacantism but I don't call them bad names.

I don't agree with sedevacantism but I don't call them bad names.

I haven't called any sedevacantists names.  I have said that sedevacantists are schismatic.  Over and over.  I have not--to my immediate knowledge--pointed anyone out in particular.  Or, at least, I have not focused on a single person from one thread to another.  

I am actually not out to make enemies.  But I will voice my opinion.  Because this is a forum, consisting of voices.  Besides, I don't post as often as I used to on here.  It's not like I have over 11,000 posts of this same stuff.  

Furthermore, when discussing the nature of sedevacantism, I've used the Crisis subforum.  This is per the rules.  I don't post as much about my opinion on sedevacantism because I don't have the time, and I've said about as much as I'm going to say on it for the time being.

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Catholics in this country are dreading this nation's further race to Hell, while sedevacantists are probably glad about it because they hate the capital of Christianity anyway.

Matthew, I've done in the past what you've asked all of us to do when garbage like the above is posted

I did not post about sedevacantism here.  We were all asked what we think about how the Obama administration is closing the Vatican embassy.  I've stated what I think the reaction of Catholics and sedevacantists will be.  I stated this because people on Cathinfo are either Catholics in full communion with the Church, or they are sedevacantists.  

"You need not agree with everyone (or even most people) here, and you are free to disagree with the moderator. However, you have to consider CathInfo members your 'fellow Catholics' -- you may strongly disagree with some of them, but you have to have enough humility to 'live and let live' and 'agree to disagree.'
 

I am able to live and let live.  But are sedevacantists here able to live and let me live?  

Nope.  They do not wish to tolerate me.  They do not wish to tolerate my conclusion that sedevacantism is schismatic.  Instead, they wish to eradicate me from the forum.  

I naievely thought that I could come to this recent conclusion about sedevacantists, state it, then people would know where I stood and my participation on this forum would be as usual.

Before now, my likers were actually double my haters.  Now, it's quite the reverse.  

But oh well.  This is my opinion for now.  And the reactions to it are very demonstrative of people's character.  I think that it is these reactions that are the biggest lesson I've taken away from all of this.

I can accept participating on a forum full of sedevacantists.  But the forum full of sedevacantists cannot accept my participation.  

I don't think he considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic.

He probably just gets frustrated with them, and their position, from time to time.

All sedevacantists being non-Catholic?  You're right, I'm not sure I consider all of them as such.  

But most often, if I am talking about sedevacantism, I'm talking about sedevacantism--the idea.  The movement.  The concept.  I am not out to get anybody on this.  

Occassionally, I try to be friendly again.  But then I'm met with some pretty nasty language anyway.  Why reach out a hand when you'll just cut it off?

And yes, I get frustrated with sedevacantists.  Mith, for example.  When fellows like him call the Church a whore, I take great offense.  Any Catholic should, because the Church is the Bride of Christ, and it was started by Jesus Christ.  To hate the Church is to hate Jesus.  To be an enemy of the Church is to be an enemy of Jesus.  

- - - - -

What do I hope to gain from telling people here my opinion on sedevacantism?  

I hope that it will spur/facilitate strong and technical dialogue between sedevacantists and those opposed to it.  Because whichever side is the strongest ought to win.  I want to see these conversations take place.  Sedevacantism is a strong temptation to many of us Traditional Catholics.  But if it is right, let it prove itself right.  

The big rush to push critics away demonstrates an unwillingness towards confrontation.  

For years, I've enjoyed reading people's thoughts on Catholic matters here.  But lately it's "I hate the pope because of this" or "I hate the pope because of that."  This place is distilling itself into a complete sedevacantist clubhouse.  

I'm sorry that some of us cannot agree to disagree.  It actually pains me that Mith is so nasty towards me, because we were actually posting on Fisheaters at the same time four years ago.  

I think that sedevacantism being confronted can spur interesting conversation.  Is that not what an internet forum is for?  Is that not why we all share this hobby...of logging onto the internet and speaking to one another?  

In calling sedevacantists schismatic (=non-Catholic) LH is in clear violation of forum rules.

LH, a much stronger case can be made that you yourself are a schismatic.

Why?  For belonging to a Mystical Body that claims primacy above all cults of the people of Earth?  A Mystical Body that possesses the authority to drive demons out of possessed people?  


- - - -

Anyway, I smell a pile-on coming.   :rolleyes:

I don't think he considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic.

He probably just gets frustrated with them, and their position, from time to time.

Oh, he definitely considers them to be non-Catholic.  

Is a schismatic who left our Lord on the cross and who desires the Catholic Church to fail -- is this kind of person a Catholic?

LH, a much stronger case can be made that you yourself are a schismatic.

Because you're in chronic disobedience to the man you believe without question to be the Pope.  That's the very definition of schism.  Paying lip service and putting up a picture of the pope doesn't put you in submission to him.

At least the sedevacantists pin their lack of submission on the assertion that these are non-popes.

If they're wrong, then they're in material (but not formal) schism.  If you're right that Francis is a legitimate pope, then you're in formal schism.

Contrary to popular belief, schism isn't the principled denial of the prerogatives of the Pope; that would be heresy.

  A Mystical Body [conciliar church] that possesses the authority to drive demons out of possessed people?  

Haven't there been quite a few unsuccessful exorcisms since Vatican II Council, or am I mistaken?