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
I voted yes, because I think the truth would in out over the sedevacantists, but many others have put forth good points as to how giving them a voice might be scandalous and dangerous to the cause of Catholic Tradition.
(01-21-2013, 08:07 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]I voted yes, because I think the truth would in out over the sedevacantists, but many others have put forth good points as to how giving them a voice might be scandalous and dangerous to the cause of Catholic Tradition.
I see your point. But on the flipside, it may lend itself to rattling the Faith of a few Catholics who are not as doctrinally "bullet proof" as others.
I voted no. Why risk it?
I say yes.

It's a subforum, right?

It make no sense to have a subforum like the cornfield where the posts filled with profanity and meanheartedness go (these are not deleted, but quarantied to a place "out of the way" so that they don't "bog down" the rest of the forum) and to not have a subforum for legitimate Catholic discussion.

I don't see how one could oppose this unless they thought that the sedevacantist thesis make one NOT Catholic.  And if that's what one thinks, that's all the more reason for such a forum because that is a seriously misguided opinion.  The FE main page recognizes sedevacantists as Catholic.
(01-21-2013, 08:38 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 08:07 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]I voted yes, because I think the truth would in out over the sedevacantists, but many others have put forth good points as to how giving them a voice might be scandalous and dangerous to the cause of Catholic Tradition.
I see your point. But on the flipside, it may lend itself to rattling the Faith of a few Catholics who are not as doctrinally "bullet proof" as others.
I voted no. Why risk it?

If you're worrying about Catholics faith being rattled, you should be more focused on banning these pictures:

[Image: 114_ZapotecBlessing01.jpg]

[Image: 001_JPIIAnimist.jpg]

[Image: pope-constantinople-wandeabimbola.jpg]

[Image: statue_buddha_assisi.jpg]

[Image: 199-ClownMass.jpg]

[Image: ClownMass01.jpg]

[Image: sad.JPG]

[Image: Mason.jpg]

[Image: john_paul_ii_quran.jpg]

The idea of a pope taking part in or enabling false worship is far more scandalous than the idea that there is currently no pope.  #thinkaboutit
(01-21-2013, 08:46 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]I say yes.

It's a subforum, right?

It make no sense to have a subforum like the cornfield where the posts filled with profanity and meanheartedness go (these are not deleted, but quarantied to a place "out of the way" so that they don't "bog down" the rest of the forum) and to not have a subforum for legitimate Catholic discussion.

I don't see how one could oppose this unless they thought that the sedevacantist thesis make one NOT Catholic.  And if that's what one thinks, that's all the more reason for such a forum because that is a seriously misguided opinion.  The FE main page recognizes sedevacantists as Catholic.
Just like our separated brethren who go to heaven. They are there by no means because of the heretical teachings that they subscribed to.
But because the individual (God only knows who) was Catholic (without knowing it in this life).

But not because of this premise, can we afford to have a protestant subforum. Same applies to a sedevacantist subforum.
They have their own websites, and sedevacantist forums for this. If you really want to have a "legitimate Catholic discussion" (as if we don't have one already between trads and non-trads alike), by all means, join their forums.



(01-21-2013, 08:53 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 08:38 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 08:07 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]I voted yes, because I think the truth would in out over the sedevacantists, but many others have put forth good points as to how giving them a voice might be scandalous and dangerous to the cause of Catholic Tradition.
I see your point. But on the flipside, it may lend itself to rattling the Faith of a few Catholics who are not as doctrinally "bullet proof" as others.
I voted no. Why risk it?

If you're worrying about Catholics faith being rattled, you should be more focused on banning these pictures:

The idea of a pope taking part in or enabling false worship is far more scandalous than the idea that there is currently no pope.  #thinkaboutit

What are you implying? #asifwedidntknowcryptosv
There are many places this can be debated on the internet.  Nobody really wants to learn anything, they just want to defend their position.

Plus, there is the problem of sub-forum creep.  For example, the SSPX controversy spans far afield from the SSPX sub forum, in everything from Catholic News to the Jew board to the Pig Roast. Once you give certain adherents to a dubious position an opening, they will invade everywhere.  One cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Error has no rights.  Sedevacantism is an error.  Therefore, it has no rights.  Q.E.D.

Quash it, with extreme prejudice.
(01-21-2013, 09:00 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 08:53 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 08:38 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2013, 08:07 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]I voted yes, because I think the truth would in out over the sedevacantists, but many others have put forth good points as to how giving them a voice might be scandalous and dangerous to the cause of Catholic Tradition.
I see your point. But on the flipside, it may lend itself to rattling the Faith of a few Catholics who are not as doctrinally "bullet proof" as others.
I voted no. Why risk it?

If you're worrying about Catholics faith being rattled, you should be more focused on banning these pictures:

The idea of a pope taking part in or enabling false worship is far more scandalous than the idea that there is currently no pope.  #thinkaboutit

What are you implying? #asifwedidntknowcryptosv

But aren't you outraged by the pic of the pope kissing the koran? And the clown Episcopalian service? And the Masons in their aprons?  Don't act like you haven't seen them a thousand times!! I know you share everyone's outrage at such shenanigans!!!

#fakeoutrageisfun
(01-21-2013, 08:53 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]If you're worrying about Catholics faith being rattled, you should be more focused on banning these pictures:

Better yet, ban the people who post the pictures too.  But pictures like these are typical of sedevacantist "arguments".  They try to create scandal with pictures (often misleading ones).  They go for emotion, rather than reason. They are all about looking for the worst possible explanation for the pope's actions.  And people like you, who don't go as far as calling yourselves sedevacantists, are the same.  You are practical sedevacantists because you refuse to treat the pope as if he were the pope.  

People like this may be Catholic, but if they are, it is in spite of their sedevacantism.  Traditional theology is very clear that being in communion with the pope is integral to being part of the Church.
(01-21-2013, 08:46 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]I say yes............ legitimate Catholic discussion.

There is a problem with it right there. How many sedes post on the internet ? So few, we could probably list them and only forget a very few of them.

I'm guessing there are 25 or so who post on forums going by Bellarmine, AQ, Ignis ardens, FE, Cathinfo, and Suscipe Domine.

"legitimate Catholic discussion " ? You just stated that as if it were a fact. Please explain why it's legit.

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