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
If you're going to not create a subforum for the discussion of SVism, then ban discussion of it and criticism of those who espouse the SVIst view on Fisheaters as 'uncatholic' or non-Catholics. (Why belittle those Catholics who are striving to do their best to be faithful to Christ and the remnant of the church)? 

Even before I embraced the SVist position, I always detested that innocent folks and friends of mine were maligned and denigrated as 'non-Catholic' and as 'heretics'; this despite the fact that 90% of them are the most devout, kind and faithful Traditional Catholics that I know.  Sure there's a nutterbutter or a kook here or there (I've met my own fair share of 'em before myself); however, most are a good sort! Smile

I just don't see the point of belittling SVists as worse than Prots or going on whole tangents about them. I never seen such vitriol as directed against one as that which is directed against Traditional Catholic, especially Sedevacantists. If one is an atheist, Prot, Agnostic, Communist, etc. it is permitted, excused, or tolerated. SVists are the one thing never to be tolerated or permitted. To embrace the SVist position, to them, is in their own particular eyes the chiefest of all sins . . .

I wish you all well and the utmost charity. May God grant and give you every blessing, peace, grace, and loving-kindness!

In Jesus & Mary+,
--- Virgil
(02-03-2013, 02:27 AM)Virgil the Roman Wrote: [ -> ]I just don't see the point of belittling SVists as worse than Prots or going on whole tangents about them. I never seen such vitriol as directed against one as that which is directed against Traditional Catholic, especially Sedevacantists. If one is an atheist, Prot, Agnostic, Communist, etc. it is permitted, excused, or tolerated. SVists are the one thing never to be tolerated or permitted. To embrace the SVist position, to them, is in their own particular eyes the chiefest of all sins . . .

Virgil, with all due respect, whilst I tend to believe that SVs are profoundly wrong and (at least) verging on heresy, I think that '(A)theist(s), Prot(s), Agnostic(s), Communist(s), etc.' are directly inspired and led by Satan, which I would never say of SVs, whom I only considered deluded. Smile
I'll take what I can get. And take that to be a compliment!  Tip o' the hat
Sooooooo......

what's the verdict?


(01-30-2013, 04:48 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Funny.  Seems people from both sides think they've proven their point.

The conclusion to be drawn from that is either that we definitely need the subforum, or we definitely don't.  If we definitely don't, then we don't really even need any Catholic discussion since there's really not much to be had.  If the current state of discipline and teaching in the Church (which proceeds and is authorized by the pope) is fully Catholic, then the question is closed-- not just on SVism, but on the crisis, period.  There may be turmoil (when is there not) but there's definitely no crisis.  If, on the other hand, the current disciplines and teachings in the Church are NOT fully Catholic, the question is open, as IF a Churchman is teaching heresy, he is to be rightfully deposed.  There's a lot more intricacies to it than that, but the openness of the question is all we're dealing with now.

I DO think that if SV discussion is to be completely forbidden, that the site should make an amendment to the definition of Catholic to exclude sedevacantists.  

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Just because discussion of SV is disallowed, then there's no need for other Catholic discussion? There are a billion things to talk about aside from sedevacantism. And how do argue "either SV is true or possible or else everything we see today is 'fully Catholic' and there's njothing to talk about", as if Popes and Bishops and priests don't err or that there's no room for improvement with regard to anything they do?

Most trads aren't sedevacantists, but most still believe we're experiencing a crisis.

And supposing SV were allowed to be discussed: aside from the debate about SV itself -- i.e., do we have a Pope or do we not have a Pope? -- and aside from the question, "if we don't have a Pope, how do we proceed?" -- then what is there to discuss about that? How would the conversation be any different at all aside from those two points?

It also makes no sense to me to say that unless I allow discussion of sedevacantism, then I should change the definition of "traditional Catholicism" (as if I have the authority to create reality or something, to make Catholics not Catholic with a few keystrokes).  How does that make any sense at all?

There are good reasons for not allowing the discussion of sedevacantism, which I've mentioned before. For those who haven't read those reasons, here are a few of them: 
  • When sedevacantism is allowed as a topic for discussion, there's a tendency for every other thread turn into a debate about sedevacantism, and it gets old -- and frustrating for those who aren't sedes, who form the majority.
  [BR]
  • There is also the problem that bitter and ugly arguing rather than civil debate seems to accompany allowing such discussions. 
[BR]
  • There's the matter of amplifying a problem the trad world already has:  armchair theologians who think they know more than they do and who insist on everyone agreeing with him lest they find themselves "outside the Church" or what have you.
[BR]
  • Another matter is that, as a group (this is a GENERAL statement), those who are sedes tend to be overly rigorist and prone to going on about things that I, as a trad, find ridiculous -- from little things like whether women wear pants or not, to big things, like whether "ideas are for girls" (a line that doesn't come from a sedevacantist, BTW). Also common are discussions of conspiracy theories, which would be fine if people would speak prudently, but, as is obvious with the troubles I have just trying to get people to stop using slurs against homosexuals, that's not going to happen. Anyway, if you don't believe me about the problem of "tone,"  visit other forums where SV is allowed to be discussed and check out the "tone." That sort of tone is not one that I want associated with FE as a whole  Those forums can be fascinating to look at, but more in a "wow, look, a car wreck!" sense. They're not likely to bring souls to Christ. .


Anyway, I haven't made up my mind and am more focused right now on getting the software updated. I'll think about all this some more...
(01-30-2013, 06:48 PM)Thomas58 Wrote: [ -> ](snip)

Since it is very evident that Sedevacantists are not welcome here and this forum, in my view, is not equally moderated, (There is no way the lack of charity and name calling would be tolerated if directed at any other group) discussion on the topic should just be banned and Sedevacantists should be told to go elsewhere.  (snip)

They're welcome here by me if they follow the rules. If they get bashed and called names, I either have to happen to see it myself or have it reported to me to do anything about it.  In a very big sense, referring to the report to moderator button, the forum's only as well-moderated as people want it to be (not that I do something about every post reported to me; I often disagree with the person reporting that there's a problem).
Vox, I don't think you quite got Miths post, if sedes are Catholics according to the forums definition there should be no issue with them debating their beliefs, if there is then they shouldn't be labelled as Catholics.
(02-05-2013, 08:55 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]Most trads aren't sedevacantists, but most still believe we're experiencing a crisis.

Would that this were true, but I don't really think it is, any more.

(02-05-2013, 08:59 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]They're welcome here by me if they follow the rules. If they get bashed and called names, I either have to happen to see it myself or have it reported to me to do anything about it.  In a very big sense, referring to the report to moderator button, the forum's only as well-moderated as people want it to be (not that I do something about every post reported to me; I often disagree with the person reporting that there's a problem). 

"Equal moderation" would seem to be impossible for a human being in any case.  FWIW, I've always thought that you do a pretty good job of moderating, Vox.  Haven't always agreed, but definitely don't envy you.  Pray for you.
vox Wrote:Most trads aren't sedevacantists, but most still believe we're experiencing a crisis.


Vox, have you read the forum lately? There is no crisis; everything is fine.
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