FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sedevacantism Debate at this Forum
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
(01-30-2013, 10:46 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]In other words, some will simply assert that Venus is not made of cheese, some will apply arguments and experiments, and others will claim that Venus simply doesn't exist?
It means those who have an agenda driven opinion will voice the opinion as truth when in reality it is not.
(01-30-2013, 06:40 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]Hmmm... Well, I will be thinking about this. I am leaning toward not bringing it back because it got so nasty and the sede stuff didn't stay in the one forum. But maybe it would work a second time around... Just not sure what to do yet...

This is absolutely the most ridiculous thing. Why don't you speak to a priest about it (other than Fr Cekada)? The traditional priests in my city are totally against Sedevacantism, calling it dangerous and un-Catholic and work tirelessly to root it out of their parishes.

Sedevacantism and Liberal Catholicism are very similar. They both appeared in the confusion created by Vatican II. But they're both now completely passé, discredited, and soon to be extinct.

I'll tell you right to your face, Vox: your definitional of Traditional Catholicism is wrong and should be changed. Sedevacantism, as it exists today, is un-Catholic. It looks like Traditional Catholicism but it isn't. Catholics are in submission to the Pope, who is currently his holiness Benedict XVI. Someone who doesn't acknowledge that fact is merely a Catholic in name only.

A sub-forum on Sedevacantism accomplishes one thing: creating a means for Sedevacantists to spread their false and erroneous views to others. It is a laughable and foolish belief to hold in 2013 and should be ignored and ridiculed for what it is: utter nonsense. Creating a place for it to be discussed on Fish Eaters will only serve to further discredit the website and forum in the eyes of faithful Catholics. If you want to drive your website into the ground and make it a breeding place for rebelliousness, be my guest. It's your funeral.

"Sedevacantism and Liberal Catholicism are very similar. They both appeared in the confusion created by Vatican II. But they're both now completely passé, discredited, and soon to be extinct. "

Correct.
(01-30-2013, 06:40 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]Hmmm... Well, I will be thinking about this. I am leaning toward not bringing it back because it got so nasty and the sede stuff didn't stay in the one forum. But maybe it would work a second time around... Just not sure what to do yet...
'
'
The only reason the threads get nasty is because others come in and start making them nasty.  It is rarely the sedevacantist that starts in.  I have your old "Wild West" (I seem to remember that's what it was called all those years ago?) section bookmarked and have read through each and every thread a few times.    That's when I noticed that the threads do all right until someone comes on and starts in with the aggressive posts.

Looks like some non-sedes want their position vindicated without any dissenting voice being heard. They've already stated their argument on this thread (which is, sedevacantism is wrong) where the SV's are not allowed to counter without breaking the rules of the forum. Nice way to refute an argument guys with your opponent silenced before you begin.

INPEFESS has given many examples in his own writings here of how debate on the subject can proceed in an orderly way with the employment of reasoned argumentation and without recourse to name-calling and other such smokescreen tactics.

Sedevacantism is the big elephant in the room that everyone must ignore and I myself being a fence-sitter like to hear the arguments for, and against, expounded and debated with the truth being the end goal.
(01-30-2013, 02:32 PM)columb Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like some non-sedes want their position vindicated without any dissenting voice being heard. They've already stated their argument on this thread (which is, sedevacantism is wrong) where the SV's are not allowed to counter without breaking the rules of the forum. Nice way to refute an argument guys with your opponent silenced before you begin.

INPEFESS has given many examples in his own writings here of how debate on the subject can proceed in an orderly way with the employment of reasoned argumentation and without recourse to name-calling and other such smokescreen tactics.

Sedevacantism is the big elephant in the room that everyone must ignore and I myself being a fence-sitter like to hear the arguments for, and against, expounded and debated with the truth being the end goal.
When some Prelate with the authority in the Church to prove that there is no Pope at present, then it is valid to listen.
(01-30-2013, 02:36 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 02:32 PM)columb Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like some non-sedes want their position vindicated without any dissenting voice being heard. They've already stated their argument on this thread (which is, sedevacantism is wrong) where the SV's are not allowed to counter without breaking the rules of the forum. Nice way to refute an argument guys with your opponent silenced before you begin.

INPEFESS has given many examples in his own writings here of how debate on the subject can proceed in an orderly way with the employment of reasoned argumentation and without recourse to name-calling and other such smokescreen tactics.

Sedevacantism is the big elephant in the room that everyone must ignore and I myself being a fence-sitter like to hear the arguments for, and against, expounded and debated with the truth being the end goal.
When some Prelate with the authority in the Church to prove that there is no Pope at present, then it is valid to listen.
This.
Anyone notice:

Votes for SV forum:  51
Votes against: 51
Total voters: 101

Something doesn't add up.
(01-30-2013, 02:52 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone notice:

Votes for SV forum:  51
Votes against: 51
Total voters: 101

Something doesn't add up.
SV will never add up.

(01-30-2013, 02:44 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 02:36 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 02:32 PM)columb Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like some non-sedes want their position vindicated without any dissenting voice being heard. They've already stated their argument on this thread (which is, sedevacantism is wrong) where the SV's are not allowed to counter without breaking the rules of the forum. Nice way to refute an argument guys with your opponent silenced before you begin.

INPEFESS has given many examples in his own writings here of how debate on the subject can proceed in an orderly way with the employment of reasoned argumentation and without recourse to name-calling and other such smokescreen tactics.

Sedevacantism is the big elephant in the room that everyone must ignore and I myself being a fence-sitter like to hear the arguments for, and against, expounded and debated with the truth being the end goal.
When some Prelate with the authority in the Church to prove that there is no Pope at present, then it is valid to listen.
This.

That don't solve the problem. When the Prelate being looked to for proof of the legitimacy of the one occupying the chair is himself suspected of holding office illegitimately, the debate goes round in circles. When there is no means of settling the argument by appeal to current authorities (who may not be legimate authorities), then the scope of appeal must be widened to include prior authiorities who were accepted by all as legitimate. Does that not make any sense?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35