Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Matthew on June 03, 2018, 11:42:23 AM
-
CathInfo is a Traditional Catholic forum, and I try to allow as many self-identifying Traditional Catholics to be members here as possible. A bit of variety and even difference of opinion (on matters of prudence) is a good thing.
However, I will not tolerate extreme or fervent sedevacantists to go too far and declare that "Recognize and Resist" is heretical. Abbreviated R&R, Recognize and Resist is the position made famous by Archbishop Lefebvre's position, and the former SSPX before it became the neo-SSPX in the late 2000's.
This isn't really a change from my existing rules -- I already forbid "dogmatic sedevacantism" -- defined as the belief that non-sedevacantists are not Catholic. If you say that I'm heretical for being R&R, isn't that the same as dogmatic sedevacantism?
I am personally R&R. I'm not going to be called a heretic on my own message board. It's that simple. Any of you reading this (whatever your Trad opinion or persuasion) would do the same thing in my position. If you attempt to deny this, you are lying to yourself. If you are sedevacantist, and you had a sedevacantist message board, and I came on there saying that sedevacantism is heresy, I would be banned. Again, this is the truth so don't even try to deny it. And the same goes for other positions or opinions within the Traditional Catholic spectrum.
No one would tolerate being called a heretic on their own message board. I defy anyone to produce an example of a any forum on the Internet that tolerates this. Go call any moderator on a mainstream (non-Catholic) board a "nαzι" or "αnтι-ѕємιтє" (those are the worst things to be, according to The World -- The World doesn't care about heresy) and see how long your account lasts.
-
Bravo.
I like what you are doing here lately.
Your recent banishments, thread deletions, and protections for R&R are all positive developments to reclaim the identity of this forum.
Well done. :applause:
-
Bravo.
I like what you are doing here lately.
Your recent banishments, thread deletions, and protections for R&R are all positive developments to reclaim the identity of this forum.
Well done. :applause:
Just to point out, so there's no confusion --
I'm not going to get out a virtual Bible and make each member swear before God that they believe the man Francis Bergoglio is Pope Francis, and the current Catholic pope.
I'm not going to ban all "sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, sede-etcetera, and those who push tolerance for the same" or however you put it. I don't think that is either wise or necessary.
The APOSTLES or SOLDIERS of sedevacantism, yes. If they are here to fight the sedevacantist cause, recruit, call R&R a heresy, etc. then I really can't put up with that. It makes for a very hostile environment for those choosing the old SSPX/Resistance/R&R position. You can discuss the position, say why you prefer it, talk about the pros and cons of the various Trad positions.
The fact is that Trads have a lot more in common (98%?) compared to the few issues that divide us. I wish we'd focus on that more. I once argued with a sedevacantist about 10 years ago about this very topic. He admitted that my wife and I wouldn't have to change ANYTHING if we "converted" to Sedevacantism. We'd just "have the truth" as the sedevacantist put it.
That tells me that, logically, sedevacantists SHOULD be able to participate on CathInfo, on just about every other topic! There have to be sedevacantists who aren't obsessed with the Pope question. I'm not giving up on this (not to mention, I believe I have found several of these sedevacantists in question: the current CI members in good standing who identify as sede).
But when a person starts literally condemning to Hell those who disagree with them on the Crisis (R&R adherents for example), how is that any different from the Dimond Brothers modus operandi? Or how is it different from the various dogmatic Sedevacantists who I've banned over the years?
But you can't argue with results. You can click anywhere you want on CathInfo (except perhaps if you look at posts deep in the past) and you're not going to find people calling R&R a heresy. That is not an accident.
-
Just to point out, so there's no confusion --
I'm not going to get out a virtual Bible and make each member swear before God that they believe the man Francis Bergoglio is Pope Francis, and the current Catholic pope.
I'm not going to ban all "sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, sede-etcetera, and those who push tolerance for the same" or however you put it. I don't think that is either wise or necessary.
The APOSTLES or SOLDIERS of sedevacantism, yes. If they are here to fight the sedevacantist cause, recruit, call R&R a heresy, etc. then I really can't put up with that. It makes for a very hostile environment for those choosing the old SSPX/Resistance/R&R position. You can discuss the position, say why you prefer it, talk about the pros and cons of the various Trad positions.
But when a person starts condemning those who disagree with them on the Crisis, how is that any different from the Dimond Brothers modus operandi? Or how is it different from the various dogmatic Sedevacantists who I've banned over the years?
But you can't argue with results. You can click anywhere you want on CathInfo (except perhaps if you look at posts deep in the past) and you're not going to find people calling R&R a heresy. That is not an accident.
No problem.
I can do all the vetting for you.
In any given sede vs R&R debate, I will simply ask the sede participants whether they consider R&R against the faith.
That ought to continue thinning the ranks, since many will not be able to resist admitting outwardly that which they consider true inwardly.
-
I don't know about that...
I think there's something to be said for NOT taking something to its logical conclusion. Thinking your opponents are wrong? That would apply to just about everyone on CathInfo. What use are beliefs if you don't consider them important, or objectively true? If I believe something to be true, then I obviously believe something which contradicts it to be false. And what does "wrong" or "false" mean when you're talking about the Faith and the path to heaven?
Taking the actual step of saying "My opponents espouse heresy" is another matter. That's a red line.
I'm not going to promise or commit to banning everyone you "beat a confession out of" hahaha It would depend on their posting history, if they are truly militant sedevacantist/militant anti-R&R or not.
-
I don't know about that...
I think there's something to be said for NOT taking something to its logical conclusion. Thinking your opponents are wrong? That would apply to just about everyone on CathInfo. What use are beliefs if you don't consider them important, or objectively true? And what does "wrong" mean when you're talking about the Faith and the path to heaven?
Taking the actual step of saying "My opponents espouse heresy" is another matter. That's a red line.
I'm not going to promise or commit to banning everyone you "beat a confession out of" hahaha It would depend on their posting history, if they are truly militant sedevacantist/militant anti-R&R or not.
Well, I expect it will not be long before I present several candidates before your tribunal.
-
Looking forward to asking that question to: Cantarella, 2Vermont, Ladislaus, and several others.
-
Oh-oh: Looks like the sedes want to hide now, rather than be confronted with that question and lose their sounding board (so they will just adopt the new strategy to thumbs-down, without risking the engagement which will lead to their banishment).
I would say that is probably their best strategy.
But they won't be able to stay out of the fray for long.
Engaging is in their DNA, so it is only a matter of (very little) time.
A little baiting is all it takes.
-
Looking forward to asking that question to: Cantarella, 2Vermont, Ladislaus, and several others.
I hope Cantarella's not banned. I never read your stuff. I read her postings all the time and like them.
-
I hope Cantarella's not banned. I never read your stuff. I read her postings all the time and like them.
Hi Rum: Do you believe R&R is against the faith?
-
Oh-oh: Looks like the sedes want to hide now, rather than be confronted with that question and lose their sounding board (so they will just adopt the new strategy to thumbs-down, without risking the engagement which will lead to their banishment).
Sean, one doesn't need to be a sede to thumb you down.
-
Sean, one doesn't need to be a sede to thumb you down.
Hi Nadir:
Do you believe that the R&R position is against the faith?
-
Hi Rum: Do you believe R&R is against the faith?
I don't know.
-
I don't know.
Thank you.
Next!
-
Sedevacantists can be their own worst enemies. Many set themselves up as their own little "popes", so to speak, and declare something to be dogma, when they themselves believe there is no authority at the present moment to declare anything as a dogma!
And of course, I say this as a sedeprivationist priest...
With every position and theory on the crisis, there is a counter argument.. There is no one single theory that someone can't find an inconsistency or issue with, including my own position of sedeprivationism.
We all need to realize that we are all Catholics, and we are in this fight together. The divisions between us all come straight from the master deceiver, the father of lies.
Oh that God would end this crisis, and soon.
-
Sean I strongly object to this behaviour. There has been no indication that Matthew wants you to become an Inquisitor or run a purge. You do not have the authority to appoint yourself.
And I refuse to answer your question .
-
Sedevacantists can be their own worst enemies. Many set themselves up as their own little "popes", so to speak, and declare something to be dogma, when they themselves believe there is no authority at the present moment to declare anything as a dogma!
And of course, I say this as a sedeprivationist priest...
With every position and theory on the crisis, there is a counter argument.. There is no one single theory that someone can't find an inconsistency or issue with, including my own position of sedeprivationism.
We all need to realize that we are all Catholics, and we are in this fight together. The divisions between us all come straight from the master deceiver, the father of lies.
Oh that God would end this crisis, and soon.
Hello Marcellinus-
Welcome to this R&R forum!
Question: Do you believe the R&R position is against the faith?
-
Sean I strongly object to this behaviour. There has been no indication that Matthew wants you to become an Inquisitor or run a purge. You do not have the authority to appoint yourself.
And I refuse to answer your question .
Hi Jayne-
Thank you for your comment!
Do you consider the R&R position against the faith?
Looks like Mathews’s latest declaration really has the sede-whatever’s shaken up, so much so that their priests are intervening with tradcuмenical (and yourself with emotional) arguments in the hope of retaining CI as a sede-everything sounding board.
But an answer from you would be appreciated.
-
Hi Jayne-
Thank you for your comment!
Do you consider the R&R position against the faith?
Looks like Mathews’s latest declaration really has the sede-whatever’s shaken up, so much so that their priests are intervening with tradcuмenical (and yourself with emotional) arguments in the hope of retaining CI as a sede-everything sounding board.
But an answer would from you would be appreciated.
Well you aren't getting an answer because you have no right to ask the question.
-
Nobody is under any obligation to answer Sean and I recommend that nobody do so .
-
Thank you.
Next!
I go by fruits and other things like, "Does this group exhibit a better ability than other traditional groups to not tolerate Judaizers?"
It's hard for me to believe that God would organize things in such a fashion that to be able to understand the crisis one would need a degree in theology. None of the traditional groups I've seen have produced fruit of such ripeness that I'm able to say, "Wow this group is heads and tails above these other groups." If there is one group that's the best, then I think it would be by a small, and not a large, margin.
I keep an open mind, out of necessity. However, I've never been too keen on the SSPX. Traditio.com influenced me in this respect.
-
Nobody is under any obligation to answer Sean and I recommend that nobody do so .
Of course you do; in light of Mathews’s declaration reclaiming the identity of this forum as R&R, it is the only survival tactic at your disposal:
A universal call to deception, hiding your true positions.
But that works just as well as a de facto banishment.
Hmmm, should my next topic be on papal infallibility?
The sede ban casualties will be reminiscent of Marathon!
-
I go by fruits and other things like, "Does this group exhibit a better ability than other traditional groups to not tolerate Judaizers?"
It's hard for me to believe that God would organize things in such a fashion that to be able to understand the crisis one would need a degree in theology. None of the traditional groups I've seen have produced fruit of such ripeness that I'm able to say, "Wow this group is heads and tails above these other groups." If there is one group that's the best, then I think it would be by a small, and not a large, margin.
I keep an open mind, out of necessity. However, I've never been too keen on the SSPX. Traditio.com influenced me in this respect.
In other words, Lefebvre did not impress you as being correct, or any better than any other contender?
-
Of course you do; in light of Mathews’s declaration reclaiming the identity of this forum as R&R, it is the only survival tactic at your disposal:
A universal call to deception, hiding your true positions.
But that works just as well as a de facto banishment.
Hmmm, should my next topic be on papal infallibility?
The sede ban casualties will be reminiscent of Marathon!
What you are doing is wrong, regardless of one's position on the Crisis.
-
What you are doing is wrong, regardless of one's position on the Crisis.
How will sedes gain martyrs with that kind of cowardice and lack of principle?
If I go to a sede website, I declare myself R&R and let the chips fall where they may.
It’s called simple honesty.
That the sedes won’t do that says more about them and their position than had they answered the question!
Matthew was right: Where are the loud and proud sedes??
-
Hello Marcellinus-
Welcome to this R&R forum!
Question: Do you believe the R&R position is against the faith?
Uh.. Do I think the R&R position is heresy? Is that what you are asking me? No, I do not think it is heresy.
St. Catherine of Siena and St. Vincent Ferrer followed two different men they both personally believed to be popes, and they most certainly were not heretics.
-
Uh.. Do I think the R&R position is heresy? Is that what you are asking me? No, I do not think it is heresy.
St. Catherine of Siena and St. Vincent Ferrer followed two different men they both personally believed to be popes, and they most certainly were not heretics.
Poor argument Fr:
There was no universal peaceful acceptance (as there is today), and consequently the identity of the “pope” was not a dogmatic fact then, as it is today.
-
Hey Sean, do you believe the Novus Ordo mass to be bad, not a proper mass, or in any way impious or a call to impiety?
-
How will sedes gain martyrs with that kind of cowardice and lack of principle?
If I go to a sede website, I declare myself R&R and let the chips fall where they may.
It’s called simple honesty.
That the sedes won’t do that says more about them and their position than had they answered the question!
Matthew was right: Where are the loud and proud sedes??
There is no reason for anyone to cooperate with a self-appointed Inquisitor who is trying to bait them. They are not being cowards, just smart.
-
Poor argument Fr:
There was no universal peaceful acceptance (as there is today), and consequently the identity of the “pope” was not a dogmatic fact then, as it is today.
Dogma is always... something isn't a dogma today that wasn't a dogma yesterday.
Truth is eternal.
With that, I respectfully bow out of this discussion.
-
:incense:
"We all need to realize that we are all Catholics, and we are in this fight together. The divisions between us all come straight from the master deceiver, the father of lies."
--------Marcellinus----
Yes, we are Catholics
-
Dogma is always... something isn't a dogma today that wasn't a dogma yesterday.
Truth is eternal.
With that, I respectfully bow out of this discussion.
Huh? Dogma what?
See Billot.
We aren’t considering a change in dogma, but whether or not the Church has peacibly accepted the papacy of a claimant (which makes it a dogmatic fact).
-
:incense:
"We all need to realize that we are all Catholics, and we are in this fight together. The divisions between us all come straight from the master deceiver, the father of lies."
--------Marcellinus----
Yes, we are Catholics
Yes, we who reject the last 60 years of popes are Catholics.....
No.
We who recognize the pope are Catholics.
We who reject the popes are dupes of the devil making sentimental pleas to be tolerated, but in fact are schismatic.
-
Viva: Do you consider R&R against the faith?
-
Viva: Do you consider R&R against the faith?
She does not have to answer you. Nobody does.
-
She does not have to answer you. Nobody does.
You seem very afraid that she should.
Sedevacantism will have no "martyrs."
-
She does not have to answer you. Nobody does.
PS: Check out the other thread regarding the SSPX procession :)
-
You seem very afraid that she should.
Sedevacantism will have no "martyrs."
It is not martyrdom for people to let themselves be manipulated by you.
(I am not even a little bit afraid.)
-
PS: Check out the other thread regarding the SSPX procession :)
I had already suspected that you were the "oxymoron" person, even before I saw his name was Sean.
-
It is not martyrdom for people to let themselves be manipulated by you.
(I am not even a little bit afraid.)
Except you are terrified anyone should say what they believe: R&R is against the faith.
Please, everyone, please don't answer! We must survive!
-
I had already suspected that you were the "oxymoron" person, even before I saw his name was Sean.
Really? I had absolutely no idea. Wow, how did you figure it out?
-
7 members and 15 guests right now, and not a sede with the character to declare what they really think.
It is a double-edged sword:
If they are honest, they get banned.
If they are cowards, they reveal the lack of steel and conviction (as well as betraying their preservation tactic, when normally there would be 10 sedes swarming all over a thread like this).
-
In other words, Lefebvre did not impress you as being correct, or any better than any other contender?
Archbishop Lefebvre picked 3 outright duds as bishops. All 3 of them are Judaizers. It's nuts. You'd think he would have had a better ability to size people up. I wonder if he could have picked some random guy off the street who would have had a better chance of leading the SSPX. Even Bishop Williamson, though I like him, has done some odd things, like inviting a rabbi to speak to seminarians years back.
Though the SSPX isn't the only traditional game in town, and the sedevacantist position is always on my radar.
Recognize and Resist, in my current state, is as likely to be the best path as the others.
-
Except you are terrified anyone should say what they believe: R&R is against the faith.
Please, everyone, please don't answer! We must survive!
I am not terrified. I am somewhat irritated that a person with no authority to do so has put himself in charge of a test of membership for this forum.
-
7 members and 15 guests right now, and not a sede with the character to declare what they really think.
It is a double-edged sword:
If they are honest, they get banned.
If they are cowards, they reveal the lack of steel and conviction (as well as betraying their preservation tactic, when normally there would be 10 sedes swarming all over a thread like this).
If they are smart, they ignore Sean.
-
I guess JayneK's not smart.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre picked 3 outright duds as bishops. All 3 of them are Judaizers. It's nuts. You'd think he would have had a better ability to size people up. I wonder if he could have picked some random guy off the street who would have had a better chance of leading the SSPX. Even Bishop Williamson, though I like him, has done some odd things, like inviting a rabbi to speak to seminarians years back.
Though the SSPX isn't the only traditional game in town, and the sedevacantist position is always on my radar.
Recognize and Resist, in my current state, is as likely to be the best path as the others.
I'll let you weed through that one, Matthew!
-
No problem.
I can do all the vetting for you.
In any given sede vs R&R debate, I will simply ask the sede participants whether they consider R&R against the faith.
That ought to continue thinning the ranks, since many will not be able to resist admitting outwardly that which they consider true inwardly.
Is R&R against the Faith? Is Jesus Christ your Lord and Saviour? Are you saved? All meaningless questions which are the products of zealots. As if R&R is the doctrine of the Church . Matthew should have the forum as he deems that it should be be, that is a given. People will find sede forums no less forgiving about their own character. It is not a terrible thing for more objective souls to see the contradictions and un-canonical elements of both the R&R and sede positions.
Those who do not acknowledge or deny them do so by their own will and are generally not open to discussion or easily influenced by facts or realities.
Be that as it may, whoever lets the zealot loose upon the rest of the forum, will have a tough time controlling him to the detriment of the forums as a whole and it will poison any honest and frank discussions.
Catholics who are of good will, do not roam the boards scalp hunting other Catholics.
-
I am not terrified. I am somewhat irritated that a person with no authority to do so has put himself in charge of a test of membership for this forum.
Who are you to demand nobody answer a question? WHo gave you that authority? I am somewhat irritated that a loud woman has arrogated to herself the right to command all members of this forum to take a certain course of action!
-
If they are smart, they ignore Sean.
Something you yourself seem to lack the ability to do.
-
Is R&R against the Faith? Is Jesus Christ your Lord and Saviour? Are you saved? All meaningless questions which are the products of zealots. As if R&R is the doctrine of the Church . Matthew should have the forum as he deems that it should be be, that is a given. People will find sede forums no less forgiving about their own character. It is not a terrible thing for more objective souls to see the contradictions and un-canonical elements of both the R&R and sede positions.
Those who do not acknowledge or deny them do so by their own will and are generally not open to discussion or easily influenced by facts or realities.
Be that as it may, whoever lets the zealot loose upon the rest of the forum, will have a tough time controlling him to the detriment of the forums as a whole and it will poison any honest and frank discussions.
Catholics who are of good will, do not roam the boards scalp hunting other Catholics.
:applause:
-
Is R&R against the Faith? Is Jesus Christ your Lord and Saviour? Are you saved? All meaningless questions which are the products of zealots. As if R&R is the doctrine of the Church . Matthew should have the forum as he deems that it should be be, that is a given. People will find sede forums no less forgiving about their own character. It is not a terrible thing for more objective souls to see the contradictions and un-canonical elements of both the R&R and sede positions.
Those who do not acknowledge or deny them do so by their own will and are generally not open to discussion or easily influenced by facts or realities.
Be that as it may, whoever lets the zealot loose upon the rest of the forum, will have a tough time controlling him to the detriment of the forums as a whole and it will poison any honest and frank discussions.
Catholics who are of good will, do not roam the boards scalp hunting other Catholics.
Hi JPaul-
You were on my short list.
Question (if you have the guts):
Is R&R against the faith?
One word answer only, please.
-
Something you yourself seem to lack the ability to do.
You bring out my inner mama bear.
-
Hi JPaul-
You were on my short list.
Question (if you have the guts):
Is R&R against the faith?
One word answer only, please.
Zero words is fine too. You don't have to answer.
-
Zero words is fine too. You don't have to answer.
JayneK fears you may give an honest answer.
-
Who are you to demand nobody answer a question? WHo gave you that authority? I am somewhat irritated that a loud woman has arrogated to herself the right to command all members of this forum to take a certain course of action!
I have made no commands or demands. I have given information and recommendations.
-
I have made no commands or demands. I have given information and recommendations.
And I have asked only questions (which you fear anyone to answer).
So you (who have made "recommendations") have been more demanding than I (who have only asked simple questions)
:
Making a recommendation is pushier than asking a question.
-
You bring out my inner mama bear.
More like your inner busybody.
-
JayneK fears you may give an honest answer.
Every time someone answers you, it helps you to create an illusion that you have some sort of authority to interrogate the members of this forum. So I don't want anyone to answer you.
-
Every time someone answers you, it helps you to create an illusion that you have some sort of authority to interrogate the members of this forum. So I don't want anyone to answer you.
Everytime you beat someone into refusing to answer, it creates the impression you have some sort of authority, so I don't want anyone to listen to you.
-
6 members and 30 viewers all waiting to see if Matthew will bow to the pressure, or stick to his guns.
36 viewers (of which 60% are sede-something, according to a recent poll) all trying to formulate a counter-strike:
How to criticize R&R without incurring a ban.
JPaul was the first, and fears to answer my question (as do all to this point but RUM).
Not very edifying, but proof of the ulterior motive of the sedes on this board: They need to survive under the guise of tolerance and "freedom of the press" to make converts.
Just survive, baby, just survive on CI....
-
I don't see why there'd care all that much. There are sede forums. It's not like being banned from this forum will make them jump off a bridge.
-
Father, can you give us all your blessing?
(And we will pray for you too)
-
I don't see why there'd care all that much. There are sede forums. It's not like being banned from this forum will make them jump off a bridge.
No traffic on those forums, and the overwhelming majority of members are already sede-something.
Not very fertile ground for crusading sede-everything.
But CI!
Now THERE is a place we can make some converts (or at least give our schismatic theories a MUCH wider viewership).
And for that reason, they are all holding back, formulating a response to These new circuмstances.
The sedes letting CI get away from them would be like Japan surrendering the Philippines: It must be defended at all cost!
-
Hi JPaul-
You were on my short list.
Question (if you have the guts):
Is R&R against the faith?
One word answer only, please.
Sorry Sean, you don't get away that easily. If and when it contradicts the Traditional doctrine of the Church, it is.
-
6 members and 30 viewers all waiting to see if Matthew will bow to the pressure, or stick to his guns.
The only one putting pressure on Matthew is you. You are trying to put him in a position where he will lose face for not banning the people you want banned. Why don't you let him run his forum the way he wants? He is the one who does all the work.
-
Sorry Sean, you don't get away that easily. If and when it contradicts the Traditional doctrine of the Church, it is.
Hi JPaul-
Is it against the faith to hold a position which would purport to recognize Francis as Pope, but reject his errors and evil commands?
One word answer, please.
-
Hi JPaul-
Is it against the faith to hold a position which would purport to recognize Francis as Pope, but reject his errors and evil commands?
One word answer, please.
:P
-
The only one putting pressure on Matthew is you. You are trying to put him in a position where he will lose face for not banning the people you want banned. Why don't you let him run his forum the way he wants? He is the one who does all the work.
Hi Jayne-
Pleasure to hear from you again.
If I understand this latest episode of psychological projection, you are trying to appeal to Matthew’s ego to silence me?
Let’s see if it works.
Meanwhile, the only pressure being exerted is towards the sedes, who seem universally unable (unwilling, actually) to answer a very simple question.
-
:P
Probably your most articulate response thus far.
-
No traffic on those forums, and the overwhelming majority of members are already sede-something.
Not very fertile ground for crusading sede-everything.
But CI!
Now THERE is a place we can make some converts (or at least give our schismatic theories a MUCH wider viewership).
And for that reason, they are all holding back, formulating a response to These new circuмstances.
The sedes letting CI get away from them would be like Japan surrendering the Philippines: It must be defended at all cost!
If all the sedes on this forum were banned at once, they would spend more time on the sede forums and the activity levels at those forums might equal or exceed CathInfo's activity. One of the main reasons I prefer this forum to the sede forums is the constant activity. But I could see a sede forum overtaking CI in activity if all the sedes were banned. These sede forums also allow membership to people who aren't sedes, so you would see an array of traditional types like you do here.
Just from the standpoint of liveliness, traffic, and hashing out things I don't think it would be in the best interests of the forum to see all the sedes leave.
BTW Sean, did you ever upload docuмents I asked you for to prove that this is your real name? I suspect it is your real name, but evidence would be nice.
-
Hi Jayne-
Pleasure to hear from you again.
If I understand this latest episode of psychological projection, you are trying to appeal to Matthew’s ego to silence me?
Let’s see if it works.
Meanwhile, the only pressure being exerted is towards the sedes, who seem universally unable (unwillingness by, actually) to answer a very simple question.
It has been my impression that Matthew is pretty good at recognizing when people are trying to manipulate him. I expect him to see it this time too.
Meanwhile, there is no good reason for anyone to answer your "very simple question". You have already admitted that you are attempting to put people in a difficult position with it. There is no reason for anyone to play your games.
-
Probably your most articulate response thus far.
:laugh1:
This is lots of fun but I have to go now. I'll check back in tomorrow to see what mischief you've been up to.
-
If all the sedes on this forum were banned at once, they would spend more time on the sede forums and the activity levels at those forums might equal or exceed CathInfo's activity. One of the main reasons I prefer this forum to the sede forums is the constant activity. But I could see a sede forum overtaking CI in activity if all the sedes were banned. These sede forums also allow membership to people who aren't sedes, so you would see an array of traditional types like you do here.
Just from the standpoint of liveliness, traffic, and hashing out things I don't think it would be in the best interests of the forum to see all the sedes leave.
BTW Sean, did you ever upload docuмents I asked you for to prove that this is your real name? I suspect it is your real name, but evidence would be nice.
Rum-
I guess you will need to take Matthews word for the veracity of my identity.
Regarding losing all the sede activity, what a blessing and a safeguard for souls that would be.
By the way, are you also stroking Matthew by throwing out the idea that CI could drop to 2nd place without the sedes?
Once again, let’s see if it works!
-
Nobody is trying to "convert" someone to sedevacantism. It's not a religion, but only a theological position ... or, rather, the application of certain theological principles to today's crisis.
-
It has been my impression that Matthew is pretty good at recognizing when people are trying to manipulate him. I expect him to see it this time too.
Meanwhile, there is no good reason for anyone to answer your "very simple question". You have already admitted that you are attempting to put people in a difficult position with it. There is no reason for anyone to play your games.
I have no doubt Matthew easily sees through your self-interested flattery.
Rather crude, actually.
-
:laugh1:
This is lots of fun but I have to go now. I'll check back in tomorrow to see what mischief you've been up to.
Looking forward to it.
-
Hi JPaul-
Is it against the faith to hold a position which would purport to recognize Francis as Pope, but reject his errors and evil commands?
One word answer, please.
Of course not. But that has nothing to do with the argument, which actually deals with the Magisterium and Universal Discipline ... and not with personal errors and evil positive commands.
-
Nobody is trying to "convert" someone to sedevacantism. It's not a religion, but only a theological position ... or, rather, the application of certain theological principles to today's crisis.
Ladislaus!
I’ve been hoping you would drop in!
Question: Do you consider the R&R position to be against the faith?
-
...
:farmer:
...
I wasn't going to say anything, only that Sean is "on his own" with this whole Inquisitor bit. But really, you should be able to figure that out by my first few posts in this thread...
And yes, I'm nobody's dummy. This isn't my first rodeo. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I'm a big boy and I've been moderating a Trad forum for a while now, where a person can certainly learn a few things over the years: about human nature, psychology, the various positions, the different ways a person can err. I can see the politics, posturing, angles, psychological tactics, etc. in this thread. It's so thick you can cut it with a knife.
-
Ladislaus!
I’ve been hoping you would drop in!
Question: Do you consider the R&R position to be against the faith?
I consider some propositions held by certain R&R to be against the faith. But just as there are 100 flavors of sedevacantism, so too there are 100 flavors of R&R. So, for instance, I have zero problem with the R&R articulated by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and many R&R priests out there.
Hey, Sean, I thought you vowed to never come back here. Did you get bored talking to yourself on your blog or posting here Anonymously?
-
I consider some propositions held by certain R&R to be against the faith. But just as there are 100 flavors of sedevacantism, so too there are 100 flavors of R&R. So, for instance, I have zero problem with the R&R articulated by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and many R&R priests out there.
Hey, Sean, I thought you vowed to never come back here.
Hi Ladislaus-
Matthews decision to clean up the forum, and recover its R&R identity changes the environment here.
It has received a very favorable response, and I suspect many who had left in frustration will now return, more than offsetting the sede departures.
Regarding your response, I will ask the question even more plainly:
Was Archbishop Lefebvre’s R&R position against the faith?
-
Was Archbishop Lefebvre’s R&R position against the faith?
Did you read my previous post? What did I write about Archbishop Lefebvre?
-
So, for instance, I have zero problem with the R&R articulated by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and many R&R priests out there.
Just to help you out, Sean, here's my previous post.
-
Did you read my previous post? What did I write about Archbishop Lefebvre?
Ladislaus-
Can you give me an example of one of the alleged R&R variants (and that there are any such variants is news to me) you find to be against the faith?
-
Father, can you give us all your blessing?
(And we will pray for you too)
Of course. You all have my blessing; every single one of you.
And I do thank you for the prayers. I do need them!
God bless.
-
Hey Sean, do you believe the Novus Ordo mass to be bad, not a proper mass, or in any way impious or a call to impiety?
there is a good reason Sean dodged this question.
-
there is a good reason Sean dodged this question.
Yes, like I didn’t see the question, moron.
The NOM is intrinsically evil, and all but mischievous persons like you know that to be my position.
But do you believe the R&R position is against the faith?
-
Yes, like I didn’t see the question, moron.
The NOM is intrinsically evil, and all but mischievous persons like you know that to be my position.
But do you believe the R&R position is against the faith?
I do not believe R&R to be against the faith, but your extreme position on the Mass is blatant heresy.
Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7: "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema."
You cannot be a sedeplenist and say that the New Mass is evil. Trent directly deals with that.
-
johnson, you are really arrogant. This has nothing to do with R&R. Your aim is only to fight and use covers to do it. When you are called down for hypocrisy, you run away pouting like a little school kid.
Man up.
-
johnson, you are really arrogant. This has nothing to do with R&R. Your aim is only to fight and use covers to do it. When you are called down for hypocrisy, you run away pouting like a little school kid.
Man up.
Hi Ignoramus-
Do you consider R&R against the faith?
-
I do not believe R&R to be against the faith, but your extreme position on the Mass is blatant heresy.
Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7: "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema."
You cannot be a sedeplenist and say that the New Mass is evil. Trent directly deals with that.
Hi Forlorn-
ABL was a sedeplentist, and founder of the R&R position, and considered the new Mass evil.
Was he acting against Trent for doing so?
-
Hi Forlorn-
ABL was a sedeplentist, and founder of the R&R position, and considered the new Mass evil.
Was he acting against Trent for doing so?
I'd need to better understand his position, but seeing as you believe there's no conflict between that Trent quote and believing NOM is evil, could you explain your position for me?
-
I'd need to better understand his position, but seeing as you believe there's no conflict between that Trent quote and believing NOM is evil, could you explain your position for me?
Sure:
The Trent passage you quote pertains to ceremonies which the Catholic Church DOES use, whereas the NOM is evil for that which it DOES NOT use (e.g., elimination of an offertory, etc).
Remember, evil in the scholastic/philosophical (not moral) sense in which I use the word is the privation of a good.
This is why the passage of Trent you quote was not violated, but preserved, by ABL (and me).
I do appreciate the derail tactic though.
If you would like to start another thread and debate the NOM, I am happy to do so.
-
How will sedes gain martyrs with that kind of cowardice and lack of principle?
If I go to a sede website, I declare myself R&R and let the chips fall where they may.
It’s called simple honesty.
That the sedes won’t do that says more about them and their position than had they answered the question!
Matthew was right: Where are the loud and proud sedes??
Come forward an speakest thou sedes!
Your martyrdom is nigh :heretic:
-
Hi JPaul-
Is it against the faith to hold a position which would purport to recognize Francis as Pope, but reject his errors and evil commands?
One word answer, please.
Sean, we do not fall for your deception of trying to force us into one-word answers, the result of which are then very easy for you to characterize for your own ends.
There is no precedent in the Church of such a position being held when the man in question is, for all intents and purposes, a heretic.
-
Hi Forlorn-
ABL was a sedeplentist, and founder of the R&R position, and considered the new Mass evil.
Was he acting against Trent for doing so?
If he did not reject the New Order service as such, then yes he was.
-
Sean, do you believe that the council to be a legitimate council of the Catholic Church?
-
Sean, we do not fall for your deception of trying to force us into one-word answers, the result of which are then very easy for you to characterize for your own ends.
There is no precedent in the Church of such a position being held when the man in question is, for all intents and purposes, a heretic.
Hi JPaul-
Only to you is the reception of a simple question “deceptive.”
Thank you for acknowledging Archbishop
Lefebvre was a heretic for his rejection of the Council of Trent.
You are now Violator #2.
-
Sean, do you believe that the council to be a legitimate council of the Catholic Church?
Please start a new thread asking me this question (if your membership is allowed to persist), and ask me that question.
Please be sure to define the word “legitimate” when doing so.
-
Sean,
(if your membership is allowed to persist)
:facepalm: Have you now gained ownership of Cathinfo? Matthew is a reasonable man, a man who does not accept being insulted on his own forum. You, on the other hand are not reasonable, you are on a partisan crusade where you see yourself as entirely right and almost everyone else is wrong. It is a sad state of affairs.
-
Sean, :facepalm: Have you now gained ownership of Cathinfo? Matthew is a reasonable man, a man who does not accept being insulted on his own forum. You, on the other hand are not reasonable, you are on a partisan crusade where you see yourself as entirely right and almost everyone else is wrong. It is a sad state of affairs.
Is that a desperation attempt to remove Matthew’s gaze from your opinion regarding ABL? :facepalm:
-
(http://malekmusings.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/2/6/31268741/8015210_orig.gif?404)
-
(http://malekmusings.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/2/6/31268741/8015210_orig.gif?404)
More psychological projection of your own undesirable traits to others.
-
Translation (a la jaynek):
“Please quit responding; he’s already got two of us!”
-
Sean,
do you still go to the SSPX for any sacraments?
In my opinion, you can't really call yourself a traditional catholic if you do.
Are you conscious by the way, of how mad you sound?
-
Sean,
do you still go to the SSPX for any sacraments?
In my opinion, you can't really call yourself a traditional catholic if you do.
Are you conscious by the way, of how mad you sound?
Greetings Your Majesty-
Napoleon complex much?
Your posting history is interesting: You rarely have anything to say unless it is somehow related to me.
I would like to thank you for your devotion, but as regards your comment regarding mental states, you might reflect upon that a bit.
-
Ps: I almost forgot to ask Your Majesty:
Do you consider the R&R position to be against the faith?
-
Greetings Your Majesty-
Napoleon complex much?
Your posting history is interesting: You rarely have anything to say unless it is somehow related to me.
I would like to thank you for your devotion, but as regards your comment regarding mental states, you might reflect upon that a bit.
Right, so you don't consider yourself to be sounding mad?
And I have posted on other topics, especially your favourite topic.... flat earth.
I agree with you on most things including R &R, but you're just totally mad.
Don't you have a family to look after?
-
And do you still go to the SSPX?
-
Translation (a la jaynek):
“Please quit responding; he’s already got two of us!”
I don't care what you think you have. I'm just bored with you and choose to no longer entertain you. If Matthew wants to ban me, he's already got plenty of grounds and ammunition. Your trolling posts add nothing.
:sleep:
-
CathInfo is a Traditional Catholic forum, and I try to allow as many self-identifying Traditional Catholics to be members here as possible. A bit of variety and even difference of opinion (on matters of prudence) is a good thing.
However, I will not tolerate extreme or fervent sedevacantists to go too far and declare that "Recognize and Resist" is heretical. Abbreviated R&R, Recognize and Resist is the position made famous by Archbishop Lefebvre's position, and the former SSPX before it became the neo-SSPX in the late 2000's.
This isn't really a change from my existing rules -- I already forbid "dogmatic sedevacantism" -- defined as the belief that non-sedevacantists are not Catholic. If you say that I'm heretical for being R&R, isn't that the same as dogmatic sedevacantism?
I am personally R&R. I'm not going to be called a heretic on my own message board. It's that simple. Any of you reading this (whatever your Trad opinion or persuasion) would do the same thing in my position. If you attempt to deny this, you are lying to yourself. If you are sedevacantist, and you had a sedevacantist message board, and I came on there saying that sedevacantism is heresy, I would be banned. Again, this is the truth so don't even try to deny it. And the same goes for other positions or opinions within the Traditional Catholic spectrum.
No one would tolerate being called a heretic on their own message board. I defy anyone to produce an example of a any forum on the Internet that tolerates this. Go call any moderator on a mainstream (non-Catholic) board a "nαzι" or "αnтι-ѕємιтє" (those are the worst things to be, according to The World -- The World doesn't care about heresy) and see how long your account lasts.
I was distracted from responding to this yesterday by Sean's surprising decision to make himself the Forum Inquisitor. (Nobody expects the Seanish Inquisition.)
:jester:
Matthew, have you considered expanding this rule to say that we should not call any of the standard positions on the Crisis a heresy? It seems to me that this would better reflect your views on the Crisis. As I recall, you have said that part of what makes it a crisis is that there is not one clearly obvious answer and that all of the positions have some practical and/or theological problems.
I have posted before about my concern that people on this forum are being desensitized to the seriousness of heresy by seeing constant accusations of it whenever people disagree with each other. Heresy should leave us with feelings of horror, not be a matter of routine. You already have an excellent policy to quickly remove actual heresies and ban the poster, as you recently did in a clear case of the heresy of judaizing. Anything that does not warrant that treatment should not be called heresy.
Another advantage of expanding this new regulation is that it will illustrate the Golden Rule. You want others to refrain from calling your position a heresy and so you understand that others do not want to see their position called a heresy. It puts you on morally higher ground than merely saying that no forum allows its owner to be insulted (although this is a valid enough point.)
Anyhow, unlike some people (with the initials S.J.) I am not going to tell you how to run your forum. I just wanted to give you something to think about.
-
I don't care what you think you have. I'm just bored with you and choose to no longer entertain you. If Matthew wants to ban me, he's already got plenty of grounds and ammunition. Your trolling posts add nothing.
:sleep:
Hi Ladislaus-
Thank you for admitting Matthew has plenty of ammo in your posts which meet the criteria for banishment.
-
Hi Ladislaus-
Thank you for admitting Matthew has plenty of ammo in your posts which meet the criteria for banishment.
Ignoring my challenging questions Mr Conciliar Johnson.
That's very unlike you!
-
so let me make this simple.
If you go to the SSPX, you are a hypocrite! You partake in the concilar Church, and have no moral authority to lecture anyone.
-
so let me make this simple.
If you go to the SSPX, you are a hypocrite! You partake in the concilar Church, and have no moral authority to lecture anyone.
It's not against the forum rules to attend the SSPX for Mass and sacraments.
-
I was distracted from responding to this yesterday by Sean's surprising decision to make himself the Forum Inquisitor. (Nobody expects the Seanish Inquisition.)
:jester:
Matthew, have you considered expanding this rule to say that we should not call any of the standard positions on the Crisis a heresy. It seems to me that this would better reflect your views on the Crisis. As I recall, you have said that part of what makes it a crisis is that there is not one clearly obvious answer and that all of the positions have some practical and/or theological problems.
I have posted before about my concern that people on this forum are being desensitized to the seriousness of heresy by seeing constant accusations of it whenever people disagree with each other. Heresy should leave us with feelings of horror, not be a matter of routine. You already have an excellent policy to quickly remove actual heresies and ban the poster, as you recently did in a clear case of the heresy of judaizing. Anything that does not warrant that treatment should not be called heresy.
Another advantage of expanding this new regulation is that it will illustrate the Golden Rule. You want others to refrain from calling your position a heresy and so you understand that others do not want to see their position called a heresy. It puts you on morally higher ground than merely saying that no forum allows its owner to be insulted (although this is a valid enough point.)
Anyhow, unlike some people (with the initials S.J.) I am not going to tell you how to run your forum. I just wanted to give you something to think about.
The Seanish Inquisition!
I like it!
I guess that would make you one of the sede Marranos!
But what is especially interesting is that you don’t fault the rule (or the one making it for making it): That would work against your goal of sede-survivalism on CI.
Better to point the finger at the one asks known sede-somethings a simple question (which only two have had the candor and courage to answer).
I have eons more respect for them (clearly unreciprocated, but nonetheless) than for the huddled Masses of sedes who are devising CI survivalist stratagems and plots, rather than honestly stating their opinions.
If someone on a sede forum made a similar counter-rule, and put me to the test, I would immediately declare my position and take the consequences. I would consider anything else to approach a denial of the faith.
But not these sedes: They are unprincipled schemers.
Whatever my objections to JPaul and Ladislaus, they won a sliver of my respect for having the courage to proclaim their convictions openly, and no future disagreement will change that.
You could learn from them.
-
Sean, :facepalm: Have you now gained ownership of Cathinfo? Matthew is a reasonable man, a man who does not accept being insulted on his own forum. You, on the other hand are not reasonable, you are on a partisan crusade where you see yourself as entirely right and almost everyone else is wrong. It is a sad state of affairs.
:applause:
Well said.
-
so let me make this simple.
If you go to the SSPX, you are a hypocrite! You partake in the concilar Church, and have no moral authority to lecture anyone.
Do you consider my actions against the faith?
-
The Seanish Inquisition!
I like it!
I guess that would make you one of the sede Marranos!
But what is especially interesting is that you don’t fault the rule (or the one making it for making it): That would work against your goal of sede-survivalism on CI.
You apparently know very little about me or my goals.
Over my long history of participation in online discussions, I have developed a lot of respect for the work done by owners/moderators. When in a situation in which I cannot respect the forum's moderation I leave.
The rule itself is reasonable enough. Your attempt to use it to impose your vision on the forum is not.
-
You apparently know very little about me or my goals.
Over my long history of participation in online discussions, I have developed a lot of respect for the work done by owners/moderators. When in a situation in which I cannot respect the forum's moderation I leave.
The rule itself is reasonable enough. Your attempt to use it to impose your vision on the forum is not.
Thank you for agreeing with me that Matthew’s rule is very reasonable.
And since you find it very reasonable, you will naturally have no objection to him enforcing it.
Need we say any more?
-
Right, so you don't consider yourself to be sounding mad?
And I have posted on other topics, especially your favourite topic.... flat earth.
I agree with you on most things including R &R, but you're just totally mad.
Don't you have a family to look after?
Lol...says the nut who thinks the world is flat!
So that’s your beef!
-
Matthew, have you considered expanding this rule to say that we should not call any of the standard positions on the Crisis a heresy?
If that were the case, Sean would be one of the first to go.
-
so let me make this simple.
If you go to the SSPX, you are a hypocrite! You partake in the concilar Church, and have no moral authority to lecture anyone.
Ridiculous. Sean is being childish, but that has nothing to do with the SSPX. How do you define "partake in the conciliar Church"? I attend a Society parish, and there is no Modernism here( of that I can assure you)
Sean, here's a thought. The sedes will reveal their true position on the question of R&R in time. You don't need to go on a silly crusade asking every sede what they think. It will come to light without that
-
Thank you for agreeing with me that Matthew’s rule is very reasonable.
And since you find it very reasonable, you will naturally have no objection to him enforcing it.
Need we say any more?
I object to the forum owner neither making nor enforcing rules. He has a right and duty to do so.
I object to you, without such a right or duty, being so officious.
-
If that were the case, Sean would be one of the first to go.
An outcome greatly to be desired.
-
An outcome greatly to be desired.
:laugh1:
-
I object to the forum owner neither making nor enforcing rules. He has a right and duty to do so.
I object to you, without such a right or duty, being so officious.
Maybe you just need to burp?
-
Ridiculous. Sean is being childish, but that has nothing to do with the SSPX. How do you define "partake in the conciliar Church"? I attend a Society parish, and there is no Modernism here( of that I can assure you)
Sean, here's a thought. The sedes will reveal their true position on the question of R&R in time. You don't need to go on a silly crusade asking every sede what they think. It will come to light without that
Yes, perhaps you are right:
Time is on my side.
-
Ridiculous. Sean is being childish, but that has nothing to do with the SSPX. How do you define "partake in the conciliar Church"? I attend a Society parish, and there is no Modernism here( of that I can assure you)
Sean, here's a thought. The sedes will reveal their true position on the question of R&R in time. You don't need to go on a silly crusade asking every sede what they think. It will come to light without that
I can understand Sean's Crusade. The sedes and sedewhatevers have been getting away with saying that R&R is a heresy for awhile now. Only the worst offenders were banned. Now the policy will be enforced against saying that R&R is a heresy, I hope.
I agree though, that those who are against R&R will again make their position obvious, and thus can be reported as doing so. They can't help but be against R&R, and will of course say something eventually, since they have such animosity against it. Sean just needs to be patient, though I can understand his frustration.
-
I can understand Sean's Crusade. The sedes and sedewhatevers have been getting away with saying that R&R is a heresy for awhile now. Only the worst offenders were banned. Now the policy will be enforced against saying that R&R is a heresy, I hope.
And yet you defend your flat earth buddies when they call globe earth heresy? And even came to the defense of Truth is Eternal when he got banned for Judaizing heresy.
-
And yet you defend your flat earth buddies when they call globe earth heresy? And even came to the defense of Truth is Eternal when he got banned for Judaizing heresy.
Yes, I defended TiE in that heresy for two whole days. Fortunately, I realized it was a heresy, due to good forum members here correcting me.
You have called R&R a heresy quite a few times, and yet you are still here. I would say that the forum owner has been very patient with you, as he has been with me.
-
Maybe you just need to burp?
Well "better out than in" describes how I feel about you.
-
Yes, I defended TiE in that heresy for two whole days. Fortunately, I realized it was a heresy, due to good forum members here correcting me.
You have called R&R a heresy quite a few times, and yet you are still here. I would say that the forum owner has been very patient with you, as he has been with me.
Even if he did, defending a Judaizer is far worse than calling R&R heresy
-
Even if he did, defending a Judaizer is far worse than calling R&R heresy
I didn't realize he was a Judaizer. That's something that you don't seem to get.
Trads are just nasty people. They (you) can't help it, obviously.
-
Well "better out than in" describes how I feel about you.
Profound, impressive, and extremely feminine.
-
I didn't realize he was a Judaizer. That's something that you don't seem to get.
Trads are just nasty people. They (you) can't help it, obviously.
I'm not a nasty person at all. If you think Trads are nasty people, WHY ARE YOU HERE?
-
Even if he did, defending a Judaizer is far worse than calling R&R heresy
This illustrates what I mean about forum members being desensitized to heresy. It should not have taken Meg two days to realize that judaizing is a heresy. Several posters gave perfectly clear explanations of the problem as soon as the heresy was posted.
I suspect that Meg is just so used to people accusing each other of heresy around here that she did not understand that this was something different.
-
This illustrates what I mean about forum members being desensitized to heresy. It should not have taken Meg two days to realize that judaizing is a heresy. Several posters gave perfectly clear explanations of the problem as soon as the heresy was posted.
I suspect that Meg is just so used to people accusing each other of heresy around here that she did not understand that this was something different.
No one with even an elementary knowledge of St. Paul's letters would wonder if judaizing is heresy
-
I'm not a nasty person at all. If you think Trads are nasty people, WHY ARE YOU HERE?
Good question. And I don't have a good answer.
The Crisis in the Church has not ended, and it seems that it will not be ending soon. The nastiness of trads shows that Tradition isn't going to prevail in the Church anytime soon, and that Tradition isn't the answer to the Crisis.
God will end the Crisis when He sees fit, but who will be there to help revive the Church when He does? Nasty arguing trads? I don't think so.
See ya.
-
Good question. And I don't have a good answer.
The Crisis in the Church has not ended, and it seems that it will not be ending soon. The nastiness of trads shows that Tradition isn't going to prevail in the Church anytime soon, and that Tradition isn't the answer to the Crisis.
God will end the Crisis when He sees fit, but who will be there to help revive the Church when He does? Nasty arguing trads? I don't think so.
See ya.
Why hasn't Meg been banned? Mathew, I thought this was a"forum for Traditional Catholics"
-
Good question. And I don't have a good answer.
The Crisis in the Church has not ended, and it seems that it will not be ending soon. The nastiness of trads shows that Tradition isn't going to prevail in the Church anytime soon, and that Tradition isn't the answer to the Crisis.
God will end the Crisis when He sees fit, but who will be there to help revive the Church when He does? Nasty arguing trads? I don't think so.
See ya.
Disappointed in the treatment Meg received.
She admits she made a mistake on the Judaizing, and changed her position, but receives no mercy.
I think she is onto something regarding the nastiness we trads sometimes mete out (myself included). We tend to be traditional only intellectually, but not in practice.
Meg: I am thinking deeply about this observation of yours.
Big question: Do trads act this way outside the fora? I doubt it.
That’s something.
Maybe blogs and fora are part of the problem, and not part of the solution?
Or maybe it all depends on temperament?
Anyway, thanks for the cold water.
I will be thinking long and hard about what you said. I know my friend Samuel would agree with you, as would +BW.
-
Disappointed in the treatment Meg received.
She admits she made a mistake on the Judaizing, and changed her position, but receives no mercy.
I think she is onto something regarding the nastiness we trads sometimes mete out (myself included). We tend to be traditional only intellectually, but not in practice.
Meg: I am thinking deeply about this observation of yours.
Big question: Do trads act this way outside the fora? I doubt it.
That’s something.
Maybe blogs and fora are part of the problem, and not part of the solution?
Or maybe it all depends on temperament?
Anyway, thanks for the cold water.
I will be thinking long and hard about what you said. I know my friend Samuel would agree with you, as would +BW.
The crusader is now defending one who is clearly heterodox. By their fruits you shall know them.
-
Why don't the people down voting my last post come out and disprove what I've said?
-
The crusader is now defending one who is clearly heterodox. By their fruits you shall know them.
Meg is not heterodox. She made a mistake and backed off from her position once she realized how wrong it was.
There is nothing wrong with Sean being concerned about the Trad tendency for nastiness.
I didn't downvote you but I can understand negative reactions.
-
Meg is not heterodox. She made a mistake and backed off from her position once she realized how wrong it was.
There is nothing wrong with Sean being concerned about the Trad tendency for nastiness.
I didn't downvote you but I can understand negative reactions.
No one who is orthodox would defend what she defended. She then goes on to say Tradition isn't the answer. Sean is acting like a child. Let Mathew enforce his own rule
-
No one who is orthodox would defend what she defended. She then goes on to say Tradition isn't the answer. Sean is acting like a child. Let Mathew enforce his own rule
She was acting on emotion and not thinking clearly. She was defending someone she liked from someone she didn't like. It took a while to sink in that the ideas of the person she liked were very wrong. But then she baked off when she understood that is what orthodoxy required. Lack of orthodoxy was not the problem in that situation.
I agree that Sean is behaving very badly with the whole Inquisition thing. But he did not anything wrong by being kind to Meg.
-
This illustrates what I mean about forum members being desensitized to heresy. It should not have taken Meg two days to realize that judaizing is a heresy. Several posters gave perfectly clear explanations of the problem as soon as the heresy was posted.
I suspect that Meg is just so used to people accusing each other of heresy around here that she did not understand that this was something different.
what heresy did TIE espouse btw? I missed his posts.
-
what heresy did TIE espouse btw? I missed his posts.
He was saying that we should only eat meat that was declared clean in the Old Testament. It was a clear example of judaizing.
His posts were removed, but the responses remain in this thread:
https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/grass-fed-ruminants-that-chew-the-cud-but-divide-not-the-hoof-are-clean/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/grass-fed-ruminants-that-chew-the-cud-but-divide-not-the-hoof-are-clean/)
-
Do you consider my actions against the faith?
So you do attend the SSPX?
Those actions then, YES are against the faith. You ally yourself with modernism when you do that.
FOUR agreements made with Rome. One would be enough to put them in the Conciliar Church.
-
Ridiculous. Sean is being childish, but that has nothing to do with the SSPX. How do you define "partake in the conciliar Church"? I attend a Society parish, and there is no Modernism here( of that I can assure you)
Sean, here's a thought. The sedes will reveal their true position on the question of R&R in time. You don't need to go on a silly crusade asking every sede what they think. It will come to light without that
I am not a sede. I am not going to waste a second more trying to prove that to you. I attend only resistance Masses when I can.
I think his sspx attendance has EVERYTHING to do with this. It's what is making him so imbalanced against sedevacantism. Liberals always are imbalanced against sedevacantism. Sean makes himself a liberal by attending the SSPX.
Read my posts above for why it is wrong to attend their Masses. They are the same as the indult.
-
I can understand Sean's Crusade. The sedes and sedewhatevers have been getting away with saying that R&R is a heresy for awhile now. Only the worst offenders were banned. Now the policy will be enforced against saying that R&R is a heresy, I hope.
I agree though, that those who are against R&R will again make their position obvious, and thus can be reported as doing so. They can't help but be against R&R, and will of course say something eventually, since they have such animosity against it. Sean just needs to be patient, though I can understand his frustration.
Sean is mentally inhinged.
Anyone with any experience in life can see there is something slightly bipolar about the way he behaves.
-
The crusader is now defending one who is clearly heterodox. By their fruits you shall know them.
Why is she heterodox?
-
I don't see how Matthew's stance is any different than the stance sedes have on forums they manage. Anyone who went on a sede forum and called the position heretical would be banned, though non-sedes are allowed to participate.
-
Disappointed in the treatment Meg (a flat earther) received.
She admits she made a mistake on the Judaizing, and changed her position, but receives no mercy.
I think she is onto something regarding the nastiness we trads sometimes mete out (myself included). We tend to be traditional only intellectually, but not in practice.
Meg: I am thinking deeply about this observation of yours.
Big question: Do trads act this way outside the fora? I doubt it.
That’s something.
Maybe blogs and fora are part of the problem, and not part of the solution?
Or maybe it all depends on temperament?
Anyway, thanks for the cold water.
I will be thinking long and hard about what you said. I know my friend Samuel would agree with you, as would +BW.
Thank you, Sean. I have only myself to blame for embracing that heresy, and encouraging TiE. My mistake. I let my love for animals and God's word in the OT run away with me.
Yes, I include myself as well as being a nasty trad too at times. As to your question about trads being nasty outside of the forum, I too think that most aren't all that nasty outside of the forum. But still.....
Interesting that you mentioned that Samuel and +BW would agree. I wasn't aware of that, though maybe I should be.
Perhaps you are right, in that we are only traditional intellectually, but not in practice. But how do we become better Catholics in practice? I don't know the answer. But until we do, how is God going to use tradition to get His Church back on the right track? I don't see how he can used such flawed vessels. It's been a long time now since the Vll Revolution in the Church, and the situation in the Church has only become worse.
I know that +BW says that we should pray 15 decades of the Rosary a day. That may help. I'm going to try that.
-
Meg is not heterodox. She made a mistake and backed off from her position once she realized how wrong it was.
There is nothing wrong with Sean being concerned about the Trad tendency for nastiness.
I didn't downvote you but I can understand negative reactions.
Thank you.
-
Why is she heterodox?
She believes that the earth is flat.
:laugh1:
Just kidding. You know I don't consider that heterodox.
-
Meg said:
I don't see how he can used such flawed vessels.
Meg, with the exception of His Holy Mother, He has never used anything else than flawed vessels.
But how do we become better Catholics in practice? I don't know the answer.
We only have to fulfill our duties in life and resign ourselves to His Holy Will. Nothing else is necessary. So relax and don't worry about how God is going "to use tradition to get His Church back on the right track". His ways are not our ways.
-
Wow, quite the kerfuffle in here. Although it was jarring to step into at first, I can't say I am all that disappointed. I have felt a shift in here for several years. It's almost as though the SSPX vs Resistance infighting has died down just enough to create a void that sedes are somehow filling. Or maybe that infighting caused a distraction so they have no time or energy left over to "fight" sedes. Not sure exactly what's happened but it seems like sedes have been a pretty dominant voice here for a while.
Both Sean and Ladislaus have been very intelligent and helpful contributors and we personally have learned so much from both. Hopefully they are simply sanctifying each other at the moment.
-
Both Sean and Ladislaus have been very intelligent and helpful contributors and we personally have learned so much from both. Hopefully they are simply sanctifying each other at the moment.
:laugh1: nice way to put it
-
Not sure exactly what's happened but it seems like sedes have been a pretty dominant voice here for a while.
That's HAD been. Not "have been"...that sounds like it includes the present. The issue has been addressed and rectified.
-
I just heard about all this only a few days ago. The way I see it, this is Matthew's forum and he is perfectly welcome to run it in the manner that he chooses. Am I a sedevacantist? Yes, openly and unabashedly, and without the least bit of doubt. However, do I, or have I ever, claimed that the position taken by Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX is heretical? No I do not and have not. Why? I'll let Mgr. G. Van Noort explain: "For as long as there does not exist a clear and explicit statement of the Church about some point or other, even though it may perchance be contained objectively in the sources of revelation, it can be freely discussed without any detriment to the unity of the faith, provided that all the disputants are ready to bow to a decision of the Church’s teaching office, should one be forthcoming. Obviously the unity of faith does not extend beyond the limits of the rule of faith." In short, because the Church's teaching office has never decided or ruled on the question, neither can individual Catholics be morally bound to one position or another on a question that there exists no consensus among the Church's lawful clergy. Christian and Catholic charity require that we Catholics all recognize each other and labor peacefully together in the Lord's harvest. That has always been my position, as can be seen from my Resurrection book (published 2002), my DailyCatholic articles, my Four Marks articles, and the posts I have made in this and other forums. And by the way, that even extends to those of the (formerly) Indultarian (now) Motuarian persuasion as well.
But my principle concern, both here as well as in the other forums and my books and articles, is not in trying to prove that the Vatican leadership is in no wise Papal (Mr. Bergoglio seems to be going out of his way to do a far better job of that than any sedevacantist could ever do!), but with the problems that concern all of us traditionalists. These would be problems of individual lay Catholics seeing themselves personally as the only real authority in their own life, of assuming (arrogantly) judgmental positions against their fellow Catholics on the basis of "positions" which the Church has not ruled upon, of failing to understand (or care about) the truly apostolic authority imparted to the traditional clergy, the widespread abuse of appeals to "supplied jurisdiction" to explain or justify the ministries of traditional clergy (of whatever stripe), and so forth. There are all sorts of other questionable or even outright destructive ideas out there, apparently created to sow division, such as the Feeney claims, distributionism, geocentrism (or even flat-earthism), and further things unworthy of being named.
Dear Matthew, I have always appreciated and respected your moderate moderation of this forum. If you feel I have gone too far, even in this, you need only let me know and I will say no more. I also understand and respect that you may be under some pressures, and I will bear no grudge if these pressures force your hand. Thank you for what you have allowed me to express so far, God bless!
-
Well put Ubipetrus, my thoughts exactly.
-
But my principle concern, both here as well as in the other forums and my books and articles, is not in trying to prove that the Vatican leadership is in no wise Papal (Mr. Bergoglio seems to be going out of his way to do a far better job of that than any sedevacantist could ever do!), but with the problems that concern all of us traditionalists. These would be problems of individual lay Catholics seeing themselves personally as the only real authority in their own life, of assuming (arrogantly) judgmental positions against their fellow Catholics on the basis of "positions" which the Church has not ruled upon, of failing to understand (or care about) the truly apostolic authority imparted to the traditional clergy, the widespread abuse of appeals to "supplied jurisdiction" to explain or justify the ministries of traditional clergy (of whatever stripe), and so forth. There are all sorts of other questionable or even outright destructive ideas out there, apparently created to sow division, such as the Feeney claims, distributionism, geocentrism (or even flat-earthism), and further things unworthy of being named.
While I take exception to your shot at Father Feeney (let's leave that completely aside), this is the very position that I have articulated. I do not object to sedeplenism at all. What I object to are SOME propositions promoted by SOME R&R that are in fact contrary to Traditional Catholic teaching and the Traditional sensus fidei. As for other issues, there has ALWAYS been division among Catholics on these, sometimes very ardent disagreements (cf. the Molinists vs. Thomists) ... and that just goes with the territory and does not undermine the essential unity of Catholics in the faith. In fact, it underscores and highlights it, showing that people who are theologically at each other's throats still consider all their opponents to be within the same Catholic Church. Now, if you cross that line, then we're talking schism.
-
Ubipetrus/Griff Ruby was a Judaizer last time I checked:
(https://i.imgur.com/DeLdvrh.jpg)
-
While I take exception to your shot at Father Feeney (let's leave that completely aside)...
Actually, earlier this thread you did bring up an interesting point about varieties of "R & R" which, although I don't see "thousands" of varieties thereof, there are certainly some limited range of variations, for example that which sets apart Bp. Williamson from the rest of the SSPX (which I find difficult to distinguish, apart from his being more "hard line" - or the SSPX now being more "soft line" - than the other, a difference more of emphasis more than anything else). But there is one major distinction within "R & R" which does merit some specific mention, and this is a division which first came along way back in the days when Bp. Antonio de Castro-Meyer was forced to part company with him former associate Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira and his TFP (and the Abbe de Nantes). de Castro-Meyer and Abp. Lefebvre both saw to the hierarchical and sacramental needs for the Church into the future, while de Oliveira's group rejects all attempts to sustain them, but relying only on what few (now very few) clerics as were originally accepted before all this whole mess broke out. The one (SSPX and SSPX-like and SSPX-sympathetic) is clerical and labors to keep the sacramental power and juridical authority of God's Church in this world while the other (anti-clericalist) is by now almost exclusively lay and has nowhere to go but a "church" of scattered and all-independent laity with no sacraments, no authority, no certainty, no leadership (except that everyone in it is their own personal leader), and no future. Needless to say, on this "quasi-divide" I am wholeheartedly on the SSPX pro-clerical side. We sedevacantists have had the same problem, the same "quasi-divide" between those who are (or support and assist at the Masses of) our clergy versus those who are anti-clericalist and likewise have nowhere to go but a "church" of scattered and all-independent laity with no sacraments, no authority, no certainty, no leadership (except that everyone in it is their own personal leader), and no future. And again, I wholeheartedly support the pro-clerical side. There can be no real ecclesial unity (in that sense of the Mark of Unity) without authority, truly held and properly exercised on the one side, and properly recognized and obeyed on the other.
-
There can be no real ecclesial unity (in that sense of the Mark of Unity) without authority, truly held and properly exercised on the one side, and properly recognized and obeyed on the other.
Sheep are scattered because the shepherd has been struck.
-
Ubipetrus/Griff Ruby was a Judaizer last time I checked:
(https://i.imgur.com/DeLdvrh.jpg)
He's correct about the term perfidious Jєωs. Some Jєωs accepted the Messiah; this is merely a reference to those who did not. Latin root of the word means those who broke the faith. There's no need to pray for the conversion of those who are already converted.
-
Here's a thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/griff-ruby-is-questionable-on-the-Jєωs/) I created a while back about Ubipetrus/Griff Ruby if anyone's interested. I wonder if he still believes in the h0Ɩ0h0αx.
-
Here's a thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/griff-ruby-is-questionable-on-the-Jєωs/) I created a while back about Ubipetrus/Griff Ruby if anyone's interested...
What IS it with you and Jєωs? Why is hatred of them obviously more important to you than love of God?
And by the way (if you don't mind me getting a little personal), what kind of "name" is "rum"? Maybe you could have called yourself "whisky" or "vodka" or "cocaine" on this forum? To me, it connotates the 1920's prohibition era, when "Catholics" were associated with "Democrats, Gangsters, and Demon Rum." Is that it?
-
What IS it with you and Jєωs? Why is hatred of them obviously more important to you than love of God?
"If one does not hate the Jєω, one does not love God."
Actually that is a joke. I made that up, it is not a real quote. But I think someone must have said that sometime somewhere and I thought it was funny. I don't hate Jєωs but I do not trust the unconverted ones either and the whole "elder brothers" thing and no longer trying to convert them bothers me more than most of the rest of the Vatican II changes.
-
What IS it with you and Jєωs? Why is hatred of them obviously more important to you than love of God?
And by the way (if you don't mind me getting a little personal), what kind of "name" is "rum"? Maybe you could have called yourself "whisky" or "vodka" or "cocaine" on this forum? To me, it connotates the 1920's prohibition era, when "Catholics" were associated with "Democrats, Gangsters, and Demon Rum." Is that it?
"Griff Ruby" makes me think of the word grifter and the Jєω Jack Ruby.
I don't put much thought into usernames. I like El Dorado overproof rum, so perhaps I was sipping some when I chose the name.
-
It is neither man nor God who condemns unbelieving Jєωs, but they themselves. What they said at Jesus trial:
.
Matthew 27
23 The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified.
.
24 And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it.
.
25 And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.
-
People who aren't Judaizers or cryptos thank you when you point out error to them. They don't ignore you or get aggressive.
This guy needs basics taught to him, and yet he postures as a teacher to traditional Catholics.
It's a joke.