Author Topic: SSPX says he is the Catholic pontiff (Read 4805 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #10 on:** August 10, 2010, 08:57:02 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Yup. It's OK to come on here and declare Pius IX a Freemason, Leo XIII-Pius XII Antipopes, declare yourself a pope, deny the dogma of infallibility--but say a harsh word against SSPX and you're immediately banned. Heck, you don't ban people for declaring illegitimate the Pope after whom SSPX is named.

Say one unkind word about SSPX, however, and you're gone. But go on insulting sedevacantists with puerile ad hominem insults and you can go to town.

Does that say something about you Matthew? That you elevate SSPX above the Church itself? Some people have this bizarre cult-like attachment to SSPX.

You and your board are an absolute disgrace and give Traditional Catholics everywhere a bad name. You need to think about your personal responsibility before God, Matthew, in running a board such as this.

Honestly, there are way too many sedevacanists out there who act as if only they and maybe a few other sedes are going to Heaven. Take the Diamond Brothers, for instance. They think the SSPX, FSSP, and pretty much everything else is heretical. While they know their stuff about Catholicism and I have respect for them, they go a bit over the edge.

And I think you went over the edge, Ladislaus. Implying that all SSPX members here give Traditional Catholics a bad name.

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** August 10, 2010, 10:01:48 AM »

I banned Ladislaus for the post that SpiritusSanctus quoted (above).

I'm not going to have people putting guilt trips on me.

It's common knowledge that good Traditional Catholics care about their soul and their salvation -- if we didn't, why would we bother? Why get up for Mass every Sunday and drive 1 hour each way? Why avoid countless "pleasures" the world has to offer? Why suffer the loneliness of having few (if any) friends because of a integral Catholic lifestyle?

So, after living a completely Catholic life, when I'm told I'm on the "broad path" in so many words, that's it. Instant ban. I don't have to put up with that, and no one else would either. I have enough stress in my life. I at least need my peace of soul to be able to deal with it.

When people start criticizing me and/or the forum in general, that's it. They have no further purpose in being here. No one's forcing them to stay. People come here because they want to, because they like CathInfo and/or many of its members, and because they like my moderation style.

Matthew

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #12 on:** August 10, 2010, 11:49:02 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

I banned Ladislaus for the post that SpiritusSanctus quoted (above).

I'm not going to have people putting guilt trips on me.

It's common knowledge that good Traditional Catholics care about their soul and their salvation -- if we didn't, why would we bother? Why get up for Mass every Sunday and drive 1 hour each way? Why avoid countless "pleasures" the world has to offer? Why suffer the loneliness of having few (if any) friends because of a integral Catholic lifestyle?

So, after living a completely Catholic life, when I'm told I'm on the "broad path" in so many words, that's it. Instant ban. I don't have to put up with that, and no one else would either. I have enough stress in my life. I at least need my peace of soul to be able to deal with it.

When people start criticizing me and/or the forum in general, that's it. They have no further purpose in being here. No one's forcing them to stay. People come here because they want to, because they like CathInfo and/or many of its members, and because they like my moderation style.

Matthew

I couldn't agree with you more. Some sedes treat SSPX members as if they are condemned. That's why I have great respect for sedes here such as Myrna, sedetrad, roscoe, etc. They don't act as if sedes are the only kind of Catholics.

Matthew · « **Reply #13 on:** August 10, 2010, 11:56:00 AM »

By the way, Ladislaus is being VERY, very illogical.

"The CathInfo members are polarizing; therefore it is the work of the forum moderator."

What kind of logic is that? It sounds like "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" to me.

A dog walked into the room, then an earthquake happened. Therefore the dog caused the earthquake!
That's "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

Caminus · « **Reply #14 on:** August 10, 2010, 12:07:27 PM »

Lad had a very serious illogical streak in him. He also seemed to enjoy stirring the emotional pot for some reason as per the stupid comments above, which sounded like it was from a sobbing, irrational female.

And poor Cecelia drank the koolaid. Her opinion became a new religion and thus she interpreted everything in light of it. Not many men can go down that path and remain sane. Gentlemen like John Lane have been able to make proper distinctions for the most part, but that takes thoughtfulness and hard work, something which not many of them, including poor Cecelia, have the ability to do.