Author Topic: A fair question. (Read 14641 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #15 on:** May 16, 2014, 11:05:47 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: J.Paul
Folks who are spoiling for a fight will find it wherever they go. This thread has become contentious in a very short time.
After all this is a discussion forum where members should be able to disagree on subjects without insulting each other.
The Catholic dignity of ladies and gentlemen is far to thin these days.

Nice try-

Your veil is nothing besides a schismatic movement looking for someone to bless it as Catholic.

Seems to have found some receptivity on this forum.

And here we have the clear illustration of what I have pointed out.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #16 on:** May 16, 2014, 11:07:36 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: J.Paul
Folks who are spoiling for a fight will find it wherever they go. This thread has become contentious in a very short time.
After all this is a discussion forum where members should be able to disagree on subjects without insulting each other.
The Catholic dignity of ladies and gentlemen is far to thin these days.

Nice try-

Your veil is nothing besides a schismatic movement looking for someone to bless it as Catholic.

Seems to have found some receptivity on this forum.

And here we have the clear illustration of what I have pointed out.

Guilty as charged!

Sedevacantism is a pestilence which must be eradicated with the same vigilence and determination as the fight against modernism (from which it is spawned).

Pete Vere · « **Reply #17 on:** May 16, 2014, 11:54:45 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Actually, these posters would rather have us all banned. Frankly, I think these are the people who would be more at home at Catholic Answers Forum, now that I've learned how that forum works (from reading another topic). There certainly would be a lot fewer posts if sedevacantists and discussions of sedevacantism were banned!

Um, no.

As the CI poster who probably is most at home with Catholic Answers forum, what I like about CI over every other trad discussion forum online is the fact Matthew permits open discussion with sedes. Though at the opposite end of the trad spectrum in accepting the validity of Vatican II and the post-conciliar papacies, I would definitely leave CI if Matthew banned non-dogmatic sedes.

Cantarella · « **Reply #18 on:** May 16, 2014, 11:59:17 PM »

Sedevacantism is only a theological speculation that can easily degrade into schism for the one who holds it, if not prudent precautions are taken. There are many theological flaws in the sedevacantist thesis. Most sedevacantists are not even able to give a clear and irrefutable theological reason as to why an elected Pope can certainly never be a heretic, and why no Pope can ever fall into heresy. The final argument is that it is a matter of "Divine Law" (not ecclesiastical law, however they keep bringing up and misusing cannon laws in order to push their agenda), as if the common layman could have a final say in the matter.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #19 on:** May 16, 2014, 11:59:28 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: TKGS
Actually, these posters would rather have us all banned. Frankly, I think these are the people who would be more at home at Catholic Answers Forum, now that I've learned how that forum works (from reading another topic). There certainly would be a lot fewer posts if sedevacantists and discussions of sedevacantism were banned!

Um, no.

As the CI poster who probably is most at home with Catholic Answers forum, what I like about CI over every other trad discussion forum online is the fact Matthew permits open discussion with sedes. Though at the opposite end of the trad spectrum in accepting the validity of Vatican II and the post-conciliar papacies, I would definitely leave CI if Matthew banned non-dogmatic sedes.

...as though the consequences hinged on whether or not the sede was dogmatic or non-dogmatic.

Either way, the pestilence is spread.

PS to Pete: I think you tipped your cards a bit with this post (wink-wink).

Pete Vere · « **Reply #20 on:** May 17, 2014, 12:00:46 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Here's another dogmatic anti-sedevacantist, just a few months after having expelled 9 sedevacantists........for reasons they claim had nothing to do with sedevacantism!

But not a 10th sedevacantist, whom the same alleged dogmatic anti-sedevacantist would invite to publicly co-consecrate four bishops with despite a lack of papal mandate.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #21 on:** May 17, 2014, 12:02:57 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Here's another dogmatic anti-sedevacantist, just a few months after having expelled 9 sedevacantists........for reasons they claim had nothing to do with sedevacantism!

But not a 10th sedevacantist, whom the same alleged dogmatic anti-sedevacantist would invite to publicly co-consecrate four bishops with despite a lack of papal mandate.

Please:

Pretending it were true, are you really going to hold a man to every word he utters, when the bulk of his career before and after runs contrary to the hallucination?

PS: Skillful derailment, I might add.

PPS: Was he making such comments before the invitation?

Pete Vere · « **Reply #22 on:** May 17, 2014, 12:05:10 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: TKGS
Actually, these posters would rather have us all banned. Frankly, I think these are the people who would be more at home at Catholic Answers Forum, now that I've learned how that forum works (from reading another topic). There certainly would be a lot fewer posts if sedevacantists and discussions of sedevacantism were banned!

Um, no.

As the CI poster who probably is most at home with Catholic Answers forum, what I like about CI over every other trad discussion forum online is the fact Matthew permits open discussion with sedes. Though at the opposite end of the trad spectrum in accepting the validity of Vatican II and the post-conciliar papacies, I would definitely leave CI if Matthew banned non-dogmatic sedes.

...as though the consequences hinged on whether or not the sede was dogmatic or non-dogmatic.

Either way, the pestilence is spread.

PS to Pete: I think you tipped your cards a bit with this post (wink-wink).

LOL! Like I have kept them hidden for the last 20 or so years?

Pete Vere · « **Reply #23 on:** May 17, 2014, 12:06:39 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

PPS: Was he making such comments before the invitation?

If one is to believe Mgr Williamson's newsletters, it would certainly appear so.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #24 on:** May 17, 2014, 12:06:55 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: TKGS
Actually, these posters would rather have us all banned. Frankly, I think these are the people who would be more at home at Catholic Answers Forum, now that I've learned how that forum works (from reading another topic). There certainly would be a lot fewer posts if sedevacantists and discussions of sedevacantism were banned!

Um, no.

As the CI poster who probably is most at home with Catholic Answers forum, what I like about CI over every other trad discussion forum online is the fact Matthew permits open discussion with sedes. Though at the opposite end of the trad spectrum in accepting the validity of Vatican II and the post-conciliar papacies, I would definitely leave CI if Matthew banned non-dogmatic sedes.

...as though the consequences hinged on whether or not the sede was dogmatic or non-dogmatic.

Either way, the pestilence is spread.

PS to Pete: I think you tipped your cards a bit with this post (wink-wink).

LOL! Like I have kept them hidden for the last 20 or so years?

Your hatred of the SSPX is well-known, I admit.

But your latest tactic of joining forces with the schismatics to fight tradition is a new wrinkle.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #25 on:** May 17, 2014, 12:09:06 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson
PPS: Was he making such comments before the invitation?

If one is to believe Mgr Williamson's newsletters, it would certainly appear so.

Can you please produce the pre-1988 Fr. Williamson newsletter of which you speak?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #26 on:** May 17, 2014, 12:12:08 AM »

PS: At any given time, you can go to the bottom of the home screen, and see the "Active Forum Users."

Note the names, and how many of them are active sedevacantist schismatic posters.

It is usually in the 50% range.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #27 on:** May 17, 2014, 12:21:46 AM »

Quote from: Machabees

With that said, there has been a growing concern over the last year especially, and even more recently in some forums, that the entitled “R&R” forums are being overrun particularly by sedevacantists spreading their [errors] on such R&R sites.

That concern was met with a lot of reasonable and fair questions from the R&R people across the many Forums; why is this happening on an R&R site?

Basically, it is a combination of three factors:

1 - Pope Francis has moved to consolidate the reforms of the Second Vatican Council within the Church.

2 - In response to #1 above, R&R theology has diverged from the commonly accepted pre-Vatican II tradition into areas that are highly speculative. One recent example is the plethora of novel arguments denying the infallibility of papally-led canonizations.

3 - Sedevacantists are neither infiltrating nor over-running R&R forums as claimed by some dogmatic R&R. Rather, non-dogmatic R&R are becoming non-dogmatic sedevacantists or sede-agnostics/doubtists in response to #2 above.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #28 on:** May 17, 2014, 12:26:47 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: SeanJohnson
PPS: Was he making such comments before the invitation?

If one is to believe Mgr Williamson's newsletters, it would certainly appear so.

Can you please produce the pre-1988 Fr. Williamson newsletter of which you speak?

No, because as I mentioned earlier, the SSPX more-or-less refrained from broadcasting Mgr de CM's sedevacantism until the Campos reconciliation of 2000-2001.

Come to think of it, I do not recall either Mgr Fellay or the other two bishops who remain SSPX today broadcasting it after the Campos reconciliation either.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #29 on:** May 17, 2014, 12:37:38 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

But your latest tactic of joining forces with the schismatics to fight tradition is a new wrinkle.

I assume that your use of the word "schismatic" is R&R polemic for sede. Fair enough in this context given that you are candid about being R&R dogmatic anti-sede.

What I challenge is your assertion that this is my "latest tactic"?

When, since renouncing the R&R position for the Ecclesia Dei indult over 20 years ago, have I ever denied finding sedevacantism the more theologically rational position in comparison to the R&R one?

In fact, that is why Fr Summerville welched on his offer to debate publicly my criticism of the SSPX position. He freaked out the second I quoted Fr Cekada as a critic of the R&R position.