Someone asked me, "Why do you ban dogmatic Sedevacantists, instead of pointing out their error? What are you afraid of?"

I do point out the error of "dogmatic Sedevacantism" -- it's called Schism, and I ban such a one. Error is dangerous, and the truth that happens to be MIXED with that error is very alluring to some people.

One cannot be a member here, and yet consider virtually all the members to be non-Catholics.

Look at it this way: CathInfo is a Traditional Catholic message board. We all consider ourselves to be Catholics. By joining such a board, you basically approve that we are indeed Catholic -- or else you'd have to admonish publicly and often that we're not Catholic. And that would be obnoxious to most members here.

Look up "Schism" in the dictionary.

It means to cut off -- to hack-and-slash at the Mystical Body, cutting off members that you disagree with about some issue, or members you don't get along with. It's calling "non-Catholic" what is objectively "Catholic".

Adding new dogmas to the body of the Catholic Faith -- in this case, "The man Bergoglio is not the Pope" -- in such a way as to make those who DENY THIS "DOGMA" into heretics and outside communion with the Catholic Church -- is a grave error.

All the Sedevacantists on CathInfo can see this.

Now ask yourself: "Who should be banned from any forum?"
The answer is: "Those who are obnoxious to MOST members on the forum, so as to degrade the forum experience and tempt many people to leave."


Furthermore, despite each of our firm convictions in the matter -- our decision about which group is the best, where to go to Mass, etc. -- when it comes right down to it, we could turn out to be wrong. Because none of us can rely on Catholic Dogma, advice from the Saints, or personal advice from Our Lord or Our Lady to give us absolute certainty.

We're going on Prudence, here. But Prudence is only as good as the data you have about the situation. Prudential decisions can end up being "wrong", due to our faulty human grasp of any situation. Of course, if we do our best we won't be culpable, as we DID make the best decision based on our current knowledge (the very definition of Prudence).

The Conciliar Crisis simply has never happened before. We've had things close to it, which give us HINTS (the Great Schism, Arianism, etc.) but never quite this bad. So we have to EXTRAPOLATE what this or that saint would do, based on a SIMILAR situation in the past. We all have good reasons and justifications for what we each do. But that doesn't change the fact that none of us has spoken with Our Lord personally about this, nor have we found any docuмents that describe this Crisis perfectly, and then go on to describe what we must do!

Oh, and I should also point out that none of the current "positions" has won over all Traditionalists in a landslide, or single-handedly healed the great fissure in the Church. So perhaps they're all flawed in some way? That doesn't mean we should stop being Traditionalist, but it does mean that the only way to cure the Crisis is for God to send us a Pope who will build up rather than tear down the Church. A Pope who is truly Traditional.

Arguing over "which lifeboat is best" is kind of silly. None of them have flush toilets. The only solution is to repair/rebuild the Barque of Peter which is critically damaged and half under water.


I don't mind a bit of friendly family rivalry and strife on this board -- 2 vs. 2 and 1 vs 1. But when it's 1 vs. the entire board -- I'd say that "1" simply doesn't belong here. It's simple.

Because even if I don't mind being considered hell-bound, I'm quite positive that many others here would get sick of that REAL fast -- like after 5 seconds.

It's not worth driving even ONE good member away, in favor of such a theologically-messed-up member.

They are no more dangerous than dogmatizing sedeplentists. They are both dangerous and extremely divisive people.

That really depends.

You could say that "Seraphim", for instance, is a "dogmatic sedeplentist" because he believes all sedes are schismatics and won't be saved.

Although I disagree with that, and think it's an erroneous belief, I wouldn't label him as "dangerous". For one thing, he doesn't talk about sedevacantism much, and for another thing, he is a strong supporter of Bishop Williamson.

In fact, Bishop Williamson, although he doesn't have the same paranoia of sedevacantists that Bishop Fellay has, could still be called a "dogmatic sedeplentist" because he has said that sedevacantism and liberalism/Novus Ordo-ism are "two sides of the same coin".

I don't agree with that either, but would it be fair to say he's dangerous? Absolutely not!

There are varying degrees of "dogmatic sedevacantists", I suppose, just as there are varying degrees of "dogmatic sedeplentists". However, in my experience with dogmatic sedevacantists, I've found most, if not all of them to be mentally ill people with severe anger and hatred issues. It's a shame such dogmatic sedes exist, because they really give sedevacantists - and Traditional Catholics in general - a bad name.

Quote from: SJB

They are no more dangerous than dogmatizing sedeplentists. They are both dangerous and extremely divisive people.

In fact, Bishop Williamson, although he doesn't have the same paranoia of sedevacantists that Bishop Fellay has, could still be called a "dogmatic sedeplentist" because he has said that sedevacantism and liberalism/Novus Ordo-ism are "two sides of the same coin".

I don't agree with that either, but would it be fair to say he's dangerous? Absolutely not!

Bishop Williamson isn't a dogmatic sedeplentist, though, SSS. He in the same speech you quoted, he said it was 'possible' that sedevacantism was possible, but that he found it to be a erroneous position (I'm refereing to his conference to the PF laity a few weeks ago, btw). I don't know if the analogy works here.

There are varying degrees of "dogmatic sedevacantists", I suppose, just as there are varying degrees of "dogmatic sedeplentists".

Technically, not ture. Again, only hoping to clarify here- but this is important. Yes, There are varying personalities, which I think is what you meant to say. But one is either a dogmatic sedevecantist / sedeplentist, or not. It just so happens that one who holds either position tends to act like a nut and goes around with their heretic-fairy wands.

However, in my experience with dogmatic sedevacantists, I've found most, if not all of them to be mentally ill people with severe anger and hatred issues. It's a shame such dogmatic sedes exist, because they really give sedevacantists - and Traditional Catholics in general - a bad name.

Agreed here. Its a sad thing to see.

Bishop Williamson isn't a dogmatic sedeplentist, though, SSS. He in the same speech you quoted, he said it was 'possible' that sedevacantism was possible, but that he found it to be a erroneous position (I'm refereing to his conference to the PF laity a few weeks ago, btw). I don't know if the analogy works here.

Well, I suppose you are correct here.

Technically, not ture. Again, only hoping to clarify here- but this is important. Yes, There are varying personalities, which I think is what you meant to say. But one is either a dogmatic sedevecantist / sedeplentist, or not. It just so happens that one who holds either position tends to act like a nut and goes around with their heretic-fairy wands.

Ok, I'll grant you this point as well.

Quote from: Matthew

I do point out the error of "dogmatic Sedevacantism" -- it's called Schism, and I ban such a one. Error is dangerous, and the truth that happens to be MIXED with that error is very alluring to some people.

Honest question: Schism is obviously a grave concern to you. How do you look at the "recognize and resist" position of the SSPX and not consider it a schismatic position?

It would appear the person who made all of those posts in the anonymous section complaining about people being "banned for no reason" has just revealed himself.

I like CM, though I don't agree with him. He was banned for being a dogmatic sedevacantist. I don't mind dogmatic sedevacantists even though I am not one.

Dogmatic sedevacantists are embarrassments to Traditional Catholicism. I think Matthew does the right thing by not allowing them.

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: Matto

I like CM, though I don't agree with him. He was banned for being a dogmatic sedevacantist. I don't mind dogmatic sedevacantists even though I am not one.

Dogmatic sedevacantists are embarrassments to Traditional Catholicism. I think Matthew does the right thing by not allowing them.

Matthew says he believes they are a danger because of schism. My question was, how do you look at the "recognize and resist" position of the SSPX and not consider it a schismatic position as well?

How does one know for sure which position is right?

And will our position on whether or not the Chair of Peter is empty determine whether or not we are saved? I highly doubt it.

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: Matto

I like CM, though I don't agree with him. He was banned for being a dogmatic sedevacantist. I don't mind dogmatic sedevacantists even though I am not one.

Dogmatic sedevacantists are embarrassments to Traditional Catholicism. I think Matthew does the right thing by not allowing them.

Matthew says he believes they are a danger because of schism. My question was, how do you look at the "recognize and resist" position of the SSPX and not consider it a schismatic position as well?

No, the Recognize and Resist position of the SSPX is not schismatic.

They are adhering to the Catholic Church of all time, and all the Popes who have ever been normal -- you know, the ones that didn't oversee the destruction and reconfiguring of the Catholic Church. All but the post-V2 popes.

These latter popes have cut themselves off from Tradition, which is just another name for the Faith. They are stepping outside their authority, and are acting as private men even if they wear a white cassock.

The Pope can't use papal authority to preach a new Gospel. Vatican I was explicit on this.

Anyhow, it should be obvious that the SSPX isn't interested in severing itself from the Church. On the contrary, it is very interested in CLINGING to it, even if the Pope and cardinals cast it off in favor of something new.

The SSPX also doesn't wholesale declare the "mainstream Church" to be non-Catholic. They have communion with any true Catholics anywhere, of any group.