I am new here and I have a friend who is interested in knowing more about this forum. But he is hesitant to join. So he kindly asked me to find out the general feel, you know, the real ambiance regarding sedevacantists and sedeplenists here. I told him I'd ask about it since I am practically new here myself.
I already read the "refresher and summary"  thread. But it's pretty much boilerplate trad forum stuff: Sedes are welcome, if you don't like sedes stay out of the crisis subforum, etc.etc. And of course the "but we'll ban the dimond brothers followers and their trolls.".

How are sedeplenists treated here whenever they post stuff like quoting +Williamson: "Sedevacantists and liberals stem from the same error: They exaggerate papal infallibility"?
Realistically, do these users get shunned or attacked by other posters?
In case you're wondering, this person is a real trad. No horsing around the subjects regarding the NO mass, doctrine, stuff like that.
However he is not a sedevacantist.
Again, I can understand that the registered members here may in their great majority be sedeplenists, but I am talking about the "active" members. The ones who posts frequently. Not the once-a-year-then-go-back-into-lurker-mode users.

I think this is his main concern and the reason he is wary about joining.

Well this is as far as I will go out of my way for this guy.
Thanks.

   :reporter:

 

Although I have a different opinion than Bp. Williamson regarding the Crisis (I'm a sedevacantist), I have much respect for him, as I do for anyone who absolutely refuses to compromise with the Conciliar Church.

I then, am in the minority - a traditionalist who would agree that sedevacantism is in error. I'm a very new member but I can assure your friend I have never been attacked - nor seen attacked -  for agreeing with the Bishop's position that "Sedevacantists and liberals stem from the same error: They exaggerate papal infallibility"?

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

People here like Bishop Williamson (myself included), though the majority of users here disagree with his belief that sedevacantists and libs "stem from the same error".

The majority?  I wouldn't go that far.

There are plenty of non-Sedevacantists on CathInfo, including the (only) moderator and owner, myself.

I certainly won't tolerate any intolerance of non-Sedevacantists, since that would include myself! CathInfo is not a sedevacantist board. I don't know who started that rumor.

Thank you very much for all the responses and feedback.
He will be pleased to hear this.  

Let me get this straight, a friend asked you to do recon work on a web forum?

That is correct. I joined about two weeks ago. My buddy is currently a member of another forum. I told him about Cathinfo.
Since I was at FE ("gasp"), Cathinfo is widely known there. In the most negative of ways I might add.
So when I left that 7th rung of hell, I decided to join here.
I haven't seen him lately. But that one day I told him I joined this forum, he said he was skeptical because of rumors he has heard relating to non-sedes in this forum.

Sounds kind of corny, I know. But that's the way it is. And no, I did not join for this purpose.  I am one of the recent fishies that left that homoclub when the Impy/Clare scandal broke.  


B-t-w: We are not "internet buddies". We actually know each other and converse in real life.


 

Quote from: PatrickG

I then, am in the minority - a traditionalist who would agree that sedevacantism is in error. I'm a very new member but I can assure your friend I have never been attacked - nor seen attacked -  for agreeing with the Bishop's position that "Sedevacantists and liberals stem from the same error: They exaggerate papal infallibility"?

I didn't say those here who think sedevacantism is an error are a minority.

I know. You said that those who agree with that +W statement are a minority. I don't know that your assessment is accurate.

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: PatrickG

I then, am in the minority - a traditionalist who would agree that sedevacantism is in error. I'm a very new member but I can assure your friend I have never been attacked - nor seen attacked -  for agreeing with the Bishop's position that "Sedevacantists and liberals stem from the same error: They exaggerate papal infallibility"?

I didn't say those here who think sedevacantism is an error are a minority.

I know. You said that those who agree with that +W statement are a minority. I don't know that your assessment is accurate.

I tend to agree here. One might say that the statement the Bishop made is a statement of fact for all non-sede traditionalists. Its very easy to see the sede error stems from the as the liberalist/conciliar error; the misunderstanding of the infallibility of the Papacy. If you are a non sede- there are not many other ways of seeing the error of the common sedevecantist position (though the 'position' has changed over the years).

I am not sure if I am a sedevancatist or not. I have learned much here and have found the great majority to be respectful. It is a traditional forum. With that in mind, everyone is welcome.