My banning of "dogmatic Sedevacantists" is quite necessary. I can't have people coming here considering 99.9% of the members to be non-Catholics. Dogmatic sedevacantists consider Sedevacantism to be a dogma of the Faith (ridiculous, I know), or at least that is how they act. They think SV is necessary for salvation, and that anyone who doesn't embrace SV is either of bad will, or ignorant.

Most members here are well aware of SV and its arguments, so dogmatic SVs consider us to be heretics, of bad will, non-Catholic, etc.

Such a person would disrupt the forum too much to permit him to stay. They are the extremists of the Trad world. The ones who can't be at rest unless they're more hardcore than everyone else.

The definition of Schism is to cut oneself off from the Church and communion with other Catholics. If you declare a few hundred Catholics to be "non-Catholic" and treat them as formally excommunicated vitandi ("to be avoided"), that is Schism.

But you will allow wordly heretics who ridicule a traditional catholic lifestyle, like ggreg, to stay?

I think we can handle him.  As long as there's just one of him.

Quote from: jozeftiso1947

But you will allow wordly heretics who ridicule a traditional catholic lifestyle, like ggreg, to stay?

I think we can handle him.  As long as there's just one of him.

He has enormous influence on this board. As Telsphorus has repeatedly pointed out, ggreg has:

-Suggested Constantine influenced Catholic dogmas

-Stated that Christendom sided with Mafiosi

-Attacked men who have a problem with their wives using contraception

-Recognizes the state of Israel

-Praises Jєωs constantly

I am delighted in particular to see Cathedra, one of the very worst of the robo-commenters (9 posts a day), get the boot in the butt. Despite his boundless yet unfounded vanity, closed-mindedness, and sheer ignorance and lunacy, he had accuмulated a stable of fans, whom he was leading farther and farther astray. Good riddance!

I am delighted in particular to see Cathedra, one of the very worst of the robo-commenters (9 posts a day), get the boot in the butt. Despite his boundless yet unfounded vanity, closed-mindedness, and sheer ignorance and lunacy, he had accuмulated a stable of fans, whom he was leading farther and farther astray. Good riddance!

Yes: even I, a man who does not usually confront people, had endeavored to confront him about his association to a forum who consists mostly of those whom he considered as false Catholics, only to be rebuked by a newbie who had not even read all the posts Cathedra made before he decided to intervene and defend Cathedra. Cathedra himself substantiated my assessment by his subsequent replies (on that thread and on others) and particularly when he had the audacity to smear the memory of Archbp. Lefebvre (that post was happily deleted).

At least a Zionist liberal is easy to detect, but someone like Cathedra is a true menace: the seeming of piety, the affected (and ofttimes theatrical) zeal for the integrity of the depositum fidei, the parroting of ideological figureheads who have wooed party-liners, the dramatic anathemas, &c., all these things make what Matthew calls "the dogmatic sedevacantist" a very virulent and noxious person.

Ultimately these individuals are merely "dogmatic opinionists" (to redefine the arrogant neologism coined by certain sedevacantist clerics who would exalt their ideological agendae and co-equate them to faith and morals).

The CMRI Fathers do not seem to be "dogmatic opinionists," which is one of the things that makes them very edifying.