Author Topic: SSPX says he is the Catholic pontiff (Read 4167 times)

Cecelia · « **on:** August 08, 2010, 12:23:16 AM »

Moderator:

You make a lot of charges (did you write this article, or paste it from Traditio? It reads like a Traditio screed) but don't provide much docuмentation or evidence.

Footnotes? Evidence?

Grave charges should be met with evidence, not some kind of rabble-rousing 12-hit punch, along the lines of "fling enough BS at the wall and hopefully some of it will stick!"

Again, that is the modus operandi of Traditio, and I won't allow that kind of crap here.

If you have a charge against one or more priests of God (that is what they are, by the way, especially the clergy of the SSPX), you better A) know what you're doing B) have a good reason, and C) have proof.

I'm not going to allow a slander-fest against Bishop Fellay or the SSPX on my forum. I've told you that before.

Since I've warned you once before on this, you're banned from the forum on this your 2nd offense.

You have "no use" for the SSPX, so I don't know why you even come around here on this SSPX board.

Matthew

Wessex · « **Reply #1 on:** August 08, 2010, 06:47:15 AM »

Well, there is this gamble that Rome can right herself. But the passage of time is widening the odds of this happening. Which presents the Society with some serious head-scratching. Particularly, if Ratzinger's successor is a determined modernist.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #2 on:** August 08, 2010, 10:21:47 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

Well, there is this gamble that Rome can right herself. But the passage of time is widening the odds of this happening. Which presents the Society with some serious head-scratching. Particularly, if Ratzinger's successor is a determined modernist.

SSPX determined Ratzinger a Modernist...then he was elected...He is not determined a Modernist anymore by them.

But he has not changed.

:scratchchin:

Alexandria · « **Reply #3 on:** August 09, 2010, 11:42:18 AM »

No, he hasn't changed at all, but we have which is why he is considered by many as the great conservative.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #4 on:** August 09, 2010, 01:02:41 PM »

Do I dare ask about B16's position on Baptism of infants?

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** August 09, 2010, 02:20:00 PM »

Note that Cecilia has been banned for slander against the SSPX leadership.

Matthew

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** August 10, 2010, 01:05:22 AM »

She PMed me to say that she didn't get it from Traditio, but rather from Bishop Sanborn's recent letter.

She also posted a Bible quote from St. Mark; the story of the cure of the deaf and dumb man, with commentary.

She strongly suggested that I was against the truth because I was blinded by sin.

I could just as easily allege that she is blinded by her sedevacantism. However, I wouldn't be so rash as to literally judge the state of another's soul.

I have no idea of how she stands in God's eyes. I have the honesty and humility to admit that. Why do some people have a problem admitting that?

Matthew

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** August 10, 2010, 05:50:48 AM »

I joined this forum earlier this year because I mistakenly thought it could help build bridges between SSPX-types and sedevacantists.

But, as it turns out, the intentions of the moderator are to foment dissent. Matthew, you've admitted that you like the controversy because it keeps the board "active". I was hoping for rational and charitable discussion among Traditional Catholics across the spectrum.

What's happening instead is that both sides become more and more radicalized and polarized and hostile against one another.

Instead of doing the work of God to unite Catholics, this board is doing the devil's work in further dividing them.

[/My Last Post]

Elizabeth · « **Reply #8 on:** August 10, 2010, 07:43:58 AM »

I don't know, Lad. The other forums either use the word BLEEP to blot out the term 'sede vacante' or otherwise forbid people to discuss it. It would be up to each individual forum owner to decide when someone has gone too far, and somebody is always going to disagree with him.

May God bless you.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #9 on:** August 10, 2010, 08:40:05 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I joined this forum earlier this year because I mistakenly thought it could help build bridges between SSPX-types and sedevacantists.

But, as it turns out, the intentions of the moderator are to foment dissent. Matthew, you've admitted that you like the controversy because it keeps the board "active". I was hoping for rational and charitable discussion among Traditional Catholics across the spectrum.

What's happening instead is that both sides become more and more radicalized and polarized and hostile against one another.

Instead of doing the work of God to unite Catholics, this board is doing the devil's work in further dividing them.

[/My Last Post]

I doubt it possible for an internet forum to unite Catholics, the only possibility of that would be a True Pope. Till then its going to be :argue:

Even the apostles had many disagreements about this and that, not till Rome declared them dogma did they all :cheers:

This forum is a reflection of what happens when the shepherd has been struck. It can't be the Will of God for anyone to sit and judge SSPX nor SV in this day of confusion.

Matthew is only human; we should understand how he would protect his theology on the pope issue over SV, even though I disagree with him. No one can force someone to come to their side and they certainly are not a very good example when they start with they name calling and rudeness. There have been times here that I was ashamed to read another SV post, and I am staunch SV, ashamed because of their wording. Same about some people who attack SV.

I know for a fact that none of our CMRI priest would approach a SSPX person and talk that way, that some have here.

I am not trying to defend SSPX or Matthew, even though it may seem I am, I am defending this forum in general. I think it is a good forum, just because a particular friend of yours gets banned is no reason to jump. Yet if that is what you want to do, maybe internet forums are not for you.

Ladislaus, I truly wish you would reconsider, and although I do not agree with your theory on BOB, I have gained much from your other notes here, you have been one person that I have looked forward to reading, can't say that about everyone, and I am sure many people feel the same way about me.

One more point, I notice that Matthew does not remove the notes that have caused the bann, unless they are obsene. That alone is something to be admired.

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.