So it's really no change to my existing moderation policy.

As the moderator of this Catholic message board, I have to be very careful not to allow errors and heresies to be posted here.

Sure, I allow Sedevacantism and Sedeplenism, but neither of those positions are dogmatic. No Pope or Council has declared on the occupancy of the Chair of Peter during the past few decades.

So it's a matter for doubt -- a matter of private opinion and prudence. So I allow both sides to enjoy membership on CathInfo -- as long as they don't make it an issue of dogma.

But what about +Fellay supporters, a.k.a. "soft-liners", a.k.a. Accordistas?

That's different. They are objectively in error, and since the SSPX is in great turmoil, flux, and confusion right now, injecting a bit more error into the mix might mean a few more souls going astray into Modernist Rome.

I can't allow that. As a lay Catholic media owner, I have a responsibility to help maintain the entire Catholic Faith without compromise. I have to do my small part, whatever I can, to help preserve Tradition.

I have researched this SSPX-Rome deal about as well as anyone could. I've looked at the main arguments of both sides, spoken to countless laymen, spoken with a few priests and even one SSPX bishop, and received many PMs and e-mails in confidence that can't be posted publicly.

I am firmly convinced that Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Gallareta, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, et al. are on the right side, and that Bishop Fellay and his cabal are on the wrong side.

In other words, while I'll allow all legitimate viewpoints on the Crisis in the Church, I'm not going to allow a similar latitude on the Crisis in the SSPX.

The Crisis in the SSPX is, unfortunately, quite cut and dried.

Those on the side of an "agreement" with Rome might not be malicious -- at least not all of them -- but they are at least ignorant, and will cause confusion either way.

If you are willing to keep an open mind at least, you can stay on CathInfo. I'm not going to conduct a witch hunt or anything. Consider it, "Don't ask, don't tell!"

I'm also not going to post one of those "Everyone on CathInfo agrees to this: Bishop Fellay is in the wrong. Continued membership implies consent."

I don't think that's necessary. In fact, you can be very much pro-agreement as long as you don't post anything to that effect. Just keep it to yourself and we'll get along just fine.

God bless,

Matthew

even if full liberty is granted to the SSPX, they prefer schism.

Quote from: Roland Deschain

Quote from: Matthew

As the moderator of this Catholic message board, I have to be very careful not to allow errors and heresies to be posted here.

Sure, I allow Sedevacantism and Sedeplenism, but neither of those positions are dogmatic. No Pope or Council has declared on the occupancy of the Chair of Peter during the past few decades.

So it's a matter for doubt -- a matter of private opinion and prudence. So I allow both sides to enjoy membership on CathInfo -- as long as they don't make it an issue of dogma.

But what about +Fellay supporters, a.k.a. "soft-liners", a.k.a. Accordistas?

That's different. They are objectively in error, and since the SSPX is in great turmoil, flux, and confusion right now, injecting a bit more error into the mix might mean a few more souls going astray into Modernist Rome.

I can't allow that. As a lay Catholic media owner, I have a responsibility to help maintain the entire Catholic Faith without compromise. I have to do my small part, whatever I can, to help preserve Tradition.

I have researched this SSPX-Rome deal about as well as anyone could. I've looked at the main arguments of both sides, spoken to countless laymen, spoken with a few priests and even one SSPX bishop, and received many PMs and e-mails in confidence that can't be posted publicly.

I am firmly convinced that Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Gallareta, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, et al. are on the right side, and that Bishop Fellay and his cabal are on the wrong side.

In other words, while I'll allow all legitimate viewpoints on the Crisis in the Church, I'm not going to allow a similar latitude on the Crisis in the SSPX.

The Crisis in the SSPX is, unfortunately, quite cut and dried.

Those on the side of an "agreement" with Rome might not be malicious -- at least not all of them -- but they are at least ignorant, and will cause confusion either way.

If you are willing to keep an open mind at least, you can stay on CathInfo. I'm not going to conduct a witch hunt or anything. Consider it, "Don't ask, don't tell!"

I'm also not going to post one of those "Everyone on CathInfo agrees to this: Bishop Fellay is in the wrong. Continued membership implies consent."

I don't think that's necessary. In fact, you can be very much pro-agreement as long as you don't post anything to that effect. Just keep it to yourself and we'll get along just fine.

God bless,

Matthew

I volunteer to be banned then, Pope Matthew.

I only hope that those against rapproachment with Rome do the honest thing : declare themselves sedevacantists and go off into schism.

Ironic that most trads, at their core, are ardent ultramontanists......yet when in comes to accepting visible union with the Vicar of Christ, even if full liberty is granted to the SSPX, they prefer schism.

Adios.

In order for Schism to exist - lawful authority must likewise exist.

Since The Vatican II Itself was Pastoral (Not a single Anathema) enforcing it as lawful authority is likewise nonexistant.

Therefore the charge of Schism is groundless at best and at worst laughable.

Its like saying that Arius had the power to excommunicate St Athanasius because he refused to accept the Arian heresy and used his power as a Bishop to see it through with Liberias.   Somehow , I do not think St Athanasius was all that worried , nor are we.

Pax

I volunteer to be banned then, Pope Matthew.

I only hope that those against rapproachment with Rome do the honest thing : declare themselves sedevacantists and go off into schism.

Ironic that most trads, at their core, are ardent ultramontanists......yet when in comes to accepting visible union with the Vicar of Christ, even if full liberty is granted to the SSPX, they prefer schism.

Adios.