I figured he was heading there. I tried.

What about Laramie hirsch?

He keeps calling people "Schismatics". Me not like that.

For considering the recognize & resist position "heretical".

AND for being quite adamant about it, using harsh, coarse language and even harassing at least one member via PM.

I don't know how many other members Pelele "harassed", but one CI member reported Pelele's behavior and language to me and even forwarded some direct quotes. They were certainly ban-worthy.

If Pelele considers the recognize & resist position to be heretical, that's the same as being a dogmatic sedevacantist. He thinks that the owner of this forum, as well as Archbishop Lefebvre, are literally heretics.

So why is it okay for Laramie Hirsch to continue the "Sedevacantism is Schismatic" mantra?  If Pelele considering the R&R position as heretical is the same thing as saying R&R folks are heretics, then why isn't LH's assertion that Sedevacantism is schismatic not the same thing as calling every sedevacantist on this board a schismatic?

Either LH should be banned too or perhaps Pelele should be given the opportunity to return.  This doesn't seem fair.

… Either LH should be banned too or perhaps Pelele should be given the opportunity to return. This doesn't seem fair.

What you call fairness doesn't enter into the equation. Is it "fair" to have a subforum for men? Or for women? Even putting to one side for the moment the obvious fact that the owner of this site, Matthew, has the clear right to decide on membership's ground rules (at least till Obama's Thought Police tell him otherwise), it hardly takes more than a moment to realize that what sedevacantists dismissively call the recognize-and-resist position has an infinitely better pedigree in Catholic theology and Church history than the SV position does.

How so? Well, for a start, look at Galatians 1:8, where there is a clear warning that betrayal of the Faith is to be watched for and guarded against. Yet there is no suggestion that the angel from heaven preaching a different gospel is any the less an angel! When a judgment such as the status of an angel is considered by Paul to be above his pay grade, how much more is a judgment about heresy or the state of another's soul—as opposed to even grave suspicion—above yours or mine or that of any of the "experts" hereabouts? Even more telling is the famous passage starting at Galatians 2:9, where Paul speaks bluntly about opposing Cephas/Peter to his face. Can you read this passage without a frisson of disquiet? I can't. Paul never declares or even imagines that Peter's primacy is in question (nor did St. Catherine of Siena when she confronted Gregory XI). Yet this is distressing stuff, where the legitimate demands of the Faith and of piety and subordination jostle for position. To tread most carefully in such situations as these and ours, to both recognize and resist, is the response dictated by reason and by precedent.

SVism has no such basis in revelation and history. It has theoretical examination and (just perhaps) anticipation in the writings of a single doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine—but where else? No place of which I'm aware. Besides, save for one period where the Seat was empty for a year or so, no source in Revelation, in the Fathers, or in the Church doctors docuмents a distressing state of affairs of the sort and of the decades-long prolongation that we are all now in.

Sadly, then, circuмstances suggest that "there is nothing new under the sun" might be amended by a prudent man (especially one who is a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan) to "well, hardly anything." When formerly exceptional occurrences have become so commonplace that a pope speaks highly of atheists while his hit man condemns certain Franciscan priests, brothers, and sisters for their embrace of the Mass of All Time, to toss caution to the winds and (utterly without benefit of supervised advanced study and at least a decade of training in canon law and theology) to appropriate the papal authority to bind and loose to oneself—this is what SVs do, after all—hardly seems the prudent, judicious, Catholic thing to do.

Thus, one who espouses the R & R position and suspects an SV adherent of at least an incipiently schismatic mind-set cannot justly be shouted down on good-for-the-goose grounds. To do so is to place oneself uncomfortably close to equating the testimony of, say, the children at Fatima with the pronouncements of your local psychic or tarot card reader.

Quote from: Matthew

For considering the recognize & resist position "heretical".

AND for being quite adamant about it, using harsh, coarse language and even harassing at least one member via PM.

I don't know how many other members Pelele "harassed", but one CI member reported Pelele's behavior and language to me and even forwarded some direct quotes. They were certainly ban-worthy.

If Pelele considers the recognize & resist position to be heretical, that's the same as being a dogmatic sedevacantist. He thinks that the owner of this forum, as well as Archbishop Lefebvre, are literally heretics.

So why is it okay for Laramie Hirsch to continue the "Sedevacantism is Schismatic" mantra?  If Pelele considering the R&R position as heretical is the same thing as saying R&R folks are heretics, then why isn't LH's assertion that Sedevacantism is schismatic not the same thing as calling every sedevacantist on this board a schismatic?

Either LH should be banned too or perhaps Pelele should be given the opportunity to return.  This doesn't seem fair.

Well, perhaps because this an R and R website, not a sedevacantist one.  Just sayin'...

Quote from: 2Vermont

… Either LH should be banned too or perhaps Pelele should be given the opportunity to return. This doesn't seem fair.

What you call fairness doesn't enter into the equation. Is it "fair" to have a subforum for men? Or for women? Even putting to one side for the moment the obvious fact that the owner of this site, Matthew, has the clear right to decide on membership's ground rules (at least till Obama's Thought Police tell him otherwise), it hardly takes more than a moment to realize that what sedevacantists dismissively call the recognize-and-resist position has an infinitely better pedigree in Catholic theology and Church history than the SV position does.

How so? Well, for a start, look at Galatians 1:8, where there is a clear warning that betrayal of the Faith is to be watched for and guarded against. Yet there is no suggestion that the angel from heaven preaching a different gospel is any the less an angel! When a judgment such as the status of an angel is considered by Paul to be above his pay grade, how much more is a judgment about heresy or the state of another's soul—as opposed to even grave suspicion—above yours or mine or that of any of the "experts" hereabouts? Even more telling is the famous passage starting at Galatians 2:9, where Paul speaks bluntly about opposing Cephas/Peter to his face. Can you read this passage without a frisson of disquiet? I can't. Paul never declares or even imagines that Peter's primacy is in question (nor did St. Catherine of Siena when she confronted Gregory XI). Yet this is distressing stuff, where the legitimate demands of the Faith and of piety and subordination jostle for position. To tread most carefully in such situations as these and ours, to both recognize and resist, is the response dictated by reason and by precedent.

SVism has no such basis in revelation and history. It has theoretical examination and (just perhaps) anticipation in the writings of a single doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine—but where else? No place of which I'm aware. Besides, save for one period where the Seat was empty for a year or so, no source in Revelation, in the Fathers, or in the Church doctors docuмents a distressing state of affairs of the sort and of the decades-long prolongation that we are all now in.

Sadly, then, circuмstances suggest that "there is nothing new under the sun" might be amended by a prudent man (especially one who is a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan) to "well, hardly anything." When formerly exceptional occurrences have become so commonplace that a pope speaks highly of atheists while his hit man condemns certain Franciscan priests, brothers, and sisters for their embrace of the Mass of All Time, to toss caution to the winds and (utterly without benefit of supervised advanced study and at least a decade of training in canon law and theology) to appropriate the papal authority to bind and loose to oneself—this is what SVs do, after all—hardly seems the prudent, judicious, Catholic thing to do.

Thus, one who espouses the R & R position and suspects an SV adherent of at least an incipiently schismatic mind-set cannot justly be shouted down on good-for-the-goose grounds. To do so is to place oneself uncomfortably close to equating the testimony of, say, the children at Fatima with the pronouncements of your local psychic or tarot card reader.

So do you believe SV's are schismatic?  Non-Catholic?  Heretical?  All of the above?

Quote from: 2Vermont

So do you believe SV's are schismatic? Non-Catholic? Heretical? All of the above?

I was at pains to explain that true Catholics, laymen in particular, don't arrogate to themselves the authority of the hierachy, especially that of the pope. CathInfo is many things, but a Vatican dicastery isn't one of them.

That's funny because your post seemed to be supporting calling out SV's as schismatic (but not R&R's).