If you're Sedevacantist, you may not post in this thread, since it's clearly aimed at the SSPX members -- or would-be members, who don't join CathInfo (or don't visit very often) because of the large contingent of Sedevacantists we have here.

Are you avoiding CathInfo because of the Sedevacantist rhetoric found in the Crisis section?

I'm sure a lot of members don't come around anymore, so they probably won't even see this message. Who knows, maybe a few people will speak up. I'd like to know.

Since I have recently been accused of such,
Am I too idealistic for trying to have a forum that includes sedevacantists? Am I foolish for allowing them to build a hive here? Do I need to go for the Raid? Or do I just need a flyswatter to take out certain members?

Am I giving up 10 members for every 1 sedevacantist member I keep around? That would certainly be foolish on my part, if that were the case.

I don't want a bunch of "yes men" and sycophants, but I also don't like to be told how untenable my position is all the time.
Maybe the Sedevacantists have turned up the heat recently, or maybe I've just been reading posts in the Crisis section, which I'd really rather avoid?

Arguing gets old very, very quickly. I'm certainly not the only one who needs to "take a break" from time to time, or who gets fed up from time to time.

For one thing, I'm not so young and stupid that I think arguing does *a single lick* of good. Anyone with a shred of maturity knows that you never, NEVER convince anyone of anything by arguing, especially arguing with emotion.

The saints were no exception to this. If any of them were alive today, they wouldn't be members of CathInfo, nevermind argue in the Crisis section with any regularity. They would be spending their time with family, reading spiritual books, praying, and doing good works like visiting the sick, helping the poor, etc.

I guess I was trying to show that I wasn't running away, and that the SSPX position isn't untenable. But honestly, I don't expect to sway a single sedevacantist.

Matthew

How about sede impeditist?

Hmm, won't it get dull when we are gone talking to someone who agrees with everything you say?
"Tribe", how jr. high


OOps My bad! I forgot the Catholics Need Not Apply sign had been hung up here

My only contention with it is the fact that there is an absolute truth to the matter (of whether or not we have a pope, and if the one we call that is him), and that as long as sedevacantists, or anti-papists (I'm not sure what else you could call someone who believes in the "other" option as if the choice of pope were an option on a McDonald's coke top) are here professing opinions (however understandable) to the contrary of that concrete truth, those just starting out in the faith can be led astray by them.

Yes, that's a terribly unpopular thing to say, but... if you believe in a concrete truth, then as far as I understand things, you have to stand up for that truth, and not pretend it's equal with errors, or give errors equal rights (thank heaven they've been restricted from terrorizing the rest of the forum), nor can you willingly allow others to spread the errors "on your watch". Eg, if I had the forum, I could not keep a good conscience and let people come on it and say there is no pope, or we have other popes. It might be understandable if they want to come on and ask the question... but when they ask, they SHOULD be able to get an answer that isn't in error, from the company of those who know the truth.

The truth, remember, isn't a multiple choice question. There aren't a buffet of "truths" to decide from, which one we like best. There is only one reality, and like it or not, we're all stuck with it. Since there's only one truth, people ought to have it, especially when among those who have it to share. But here they are (however we feel about it) getting two or three different messages, all being earnestly touted as absolute truth.

The fact that errors can be presented as truths here, and so confuse people, is a reality right now, not merely my opinion. The fact that the moderator of this board CAN keep what he knows are errors off of his board is also a reality. I can't answer for his conscience, but I wouldn't do it. Grateful as I am that the errors are restricted to being preached in one particular part of the board, the confused can still fall right into them if they go in there. Of course that's not something we the members can do anything about.

But I hope any lurkers out there do weigh in on this. I'd love to hear what they think.

For my part, I can only see things in terms of truth and error, and I know that error and evil have no rights as far as I know. In society, a Catholic king or president has no right to decree that a false deity can be preached only in this-and-such a neighborhood, or on this-and-such a street corner. "Tolerance" means we will refrain from locking them up or executing them (like the romans did to the Christians) if they preach it anywhere, and implies that those who preach error had better keep it inside of their houses of error. Being bad for society, all of society not looking to get into that error on purpose ought to be protected from it by those who know better.

But if that's true of errors in the society outside of our doors, then I can only imagine it must also hold as the right thing for society anywhere where Catholics have the good fortune to "rule". Now I, as a Catholic, would never open a baptist church, or a coffee house for atheists. I would not open a coffee house for pagans or atheists ANYWHERE, let alone in my Church or Catholic establishment. But if I would not do that for other errors in the "real" (non virtual) world, why on earth would anyone think it a good idea to give errors a place... any place, however small... in a Catholic run establishment meant for Catholics.

I cannot keep pagans out of a grocery store if I run one. But when I open a Catholic establishment FOR Catholics, those Catholics have every right to expect I mean the one and only Catholic Faith, and no other, and that nothing contrary will be found therein.

I cannot judge the souls of the sedevacantists. I won't go so far as to say they're not Catholic, because I'm sure if nothing else they MEAN to be in God's True Church, and have done their best to stay there. Only the Lord Himself knows whether they are culpable (or how much) for their error. But I do know that it is one, and thus it ought to be treated like any other error.

So if you would not open a part of this forum for people freely to teach that we all ought to worship Zeus, or mother earth, or to teach that women priests are good, or that some sin is not one, why it should be allowed here to say that there is no pope, or that there are other popes, is beyond me.

I appreciate your good intentions, but this is one issue I could never understand about this place.

Yet to confound the truths of faith with mere opinion is to err by excess just as those who entertain false opinion injure the faith by defect.  

Furthermore, to confound heresy with theological error has the same effect.  

Yet again, sometimes to seek to know that which is beyond your capacity or duty is to sin.

Only the foolish would confound the determination of fact with the principle itself.  While the depraved carry out this inversion to the point of condemning others while building a new sect.

Opinions of their very nature admit only of degrees of probability.  Those who claim a moral certitude, let alone a pretended certitude of faith, for their opinions betray a profound ignorance of the nature of knowledge to the very real detriment of charity and justice.  Finally, their unnecessary judgments are rendered perverse by usurpation through lack of authority and proper virtue.  

Welcome to CathInfo, wallflower!

fwiw, you should know that even discussion of the merits of sedevacantism is only allowed in one subforum here ... Crisis in the Church.

Also, dogmatic sedevacantism is not allowed. Anyone who thinks not being a sedevacantist means you're not a Catholic either keeps their opinion of such private or is banned. So, it's safe to assume that those you see here do not think that way.

I am certainly pro SSPX even though we attend the diocesan Latin Mass.  We have been to the local chapel 3 times and may go again.  But I am turned off by the constant bickering that some engage in here and the very long theological articles that I am not going to read!

Good Catholics are found everywhere, even in the regular NO Church.  I wish I was as holy as some were back in my old NO Parish.  I view this crisis as being so serious and profound, so difficult to see what's best, that we are free to do what we think is best whether that's a Sedevacantist chapel, SSPX or diocesan Latin Mass.

I like that people are allowed to discuss sedevacantism here. I am an SSPX supporter who is open to the possibility of sedevacantism. I like following the arguments people have in the crisis in the Church section even though many of them are above my feeble understanding. Please do not ban such discussions, because it would detract from the value of your forum. I do not think there are many people who would otherwise post here, but are turned off because there are sedevacantists here. I think such people would be happier on Angelqueen anyway.