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
(02-06-2013, 09:00 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 02:20 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]If one believes there's a crisis and also believes th sspx isn't justified, I think that persons definition of crisis is "a little superficial accidental problem"

Like priests with unhemmed cassocks or something

From phone
There is a crisis. No doubt about that. But the SSPX has declared that there is a state of Emergency within the Church.
That is false. There is no state of emergency. That is just a strawman argument in order to carry on with illicit dispensation of sacraments.
Again, there is a crisis. We would not be here if there weren't one.

Really? And yet you revere JP2, curious.
An equal split. What happens now.

Recount?...
(02-06-2013, 10:21 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]An equal split. What happens now.

Recount?...

No point, it has been fixed.  51 + 51 = 102, yet it states there is a 101 total votes.

Huh?
(02-06-2013, 10:27 PM)Adam_Michael Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 10:21 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]An equal split. What happens now.

Recount?...

No point, it has been fixed.  51 + 51 = 102, yet it states there is a 101 total votes.

Huh?

Good observation Michael. Very singular indeed!
(02-06-2013, 10:27 PM)Adam_Michael Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 10:21 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]An equal split. What happens now.

Recount?...

No point, it has been fixed.  51 + 51 = 102, yet it states there is a 101 total votes.

Huh?

Evidently someone voted "present."
(02-06-2013, 09:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 09:00 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 02:20 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]If one believes there's a crisis and also believes th sspx isn't justified, I think that persons definition of crisis is "a little superficial accidental problem"

Like priests with unhemmed cassocks or something

From phone
There is a crisis. No doubt about that. But the SSPX has declared that there is a state of Emergency within the Church.
That is false. There is no state of emergency. That is just a strawman argument in order to carry on with illicit dispensation of sacraments.
Again, there is a crisis. We would not be here if there weren't one.

Really? And yet you revere JP2, curious.

What about me? I tend to agree with CK, but far from revering JP2, I think he was one of the worst Popes in history, that it is entirely possible that a future Pope or Council in union with the Holy See will denounce him as an heretic, that canonising him would be a profound prudential error on the part of the Church and I was once admonished on this forum for referring to him as John Paul the Small.
(02-06-2013, 05:30 PM)m.PR Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 01:16 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2013, 06:36 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2013, 04:25 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote: [ -> ]I think a major problem is that many people seem to lump anyone who disagrees with them (on anything!) as disregarding the crisis in the Church.

I think you can basically boil it down to whether people consider that the SSPX is justified in its position.  If they do, then they have to believe that there is a crisis in the Church.  If they don't, then they have to believe there is NOT a crisis in the Church, however bad things may be.

Sadly, it seems to me there are more of the latter, or at least, the latter are more vocal here, these days.

The one doesn't follow the other at all.

JuniorCouncilor was just providing Exhibit A for The Curt Jester's argument.

For the record, I wrote as I think and feel.  If that makes me an exhibit, fiat.
(02-06-2013, 01:16 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2013, 06:36 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2013, 04:25 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote: [ -> ]I think a major problem is that many people seem to lump anyone who disagrees with them (on anything!) as disregarding the crisis in the Church.

I think you can basically boil it down to whether people consider that the SSPX is justified in its position.  If they do, then they have to believe that there is a crisis in the Church.  If they don't, then they have to believe there is NOT a crisis in the Church, however bad things may be.

Sadly, it seems to me there are more of the latter, or at least, the latter are more vocal here, these days.

The one doesn't follow the other at all. One can believe there's a crisis in the human element of the Church while also believing the SSPX is not justified in its position. (And one can believe there's a crisis and also believe the SSPX is justified.) But that there sums up what I think is the problem that some people have in thinking the forum is more "liberal" or "neo-con" than it had been:  since the Motu Proprio and since the talks, there are more people here who believe the SSPX is not justified in their position, some of them even having been attendees of SSPX chapels. But this is not and has never been "an SSPX forum"; it's a trad forum for trads from all over the spectrum (with the owner herself being someone who's never set foot in an SSPX chapel) and, as said before, it isn't so that just because one doesn't think the SSPX is justified means that that person doesn't think there's a crisis. So all this "what crisis?" stuff makes no sense here.

So, as I read this, what it boils down to is that every time I say "crisis", what I really mean is "state of emergency", whereas when the people on the other side say "crisis", they mean "crisis."

I'm not sure I like to yield on the vocabulary.  Possibly it's because I wouldn't refer to it as a crisis if I didn't believe there was also a state of emergency-- without the SSPX, who, as it seems to me, use the terms pretty much interchangeably-- there's a good chance I would never have used either term.  And as INPEFESS commented in another thread, can a crisis really go on for this long, at this level of severity, without a state of emergency?  I don't see it.

Other point:  I don't believe I've ever explicitly complained about the forum being anti-SSPX, or more liberal, neo-con, etc.  What I did say, or at least what I meant, in the post quoted above, is that it saddens me that people don't think the SSPX is justified in what it's doing.  I hate to see these priests that I love and respect treated as little better than schismatics.  Again, if that makes me one of those who, in the minds of some, complain that the forum has become more liberal, fiat.
(02-06-2013, 11:07 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]So, as I read this, what it boils down to is that every time I say "crisis", what I really mean is "state of emergency", whereas when the people on the other side say "crisis", they mean "crisis."

I'm not sure I like to yield on the vocabulary.  Possibly it's because I wouldn't refer to it as a crisis if I didn't believe there was also a state of emergency-- without the SSPX, who, as it seems to me, use the terms pretty much interchangeably-- there's a good chance I would never have used either term.  And as INPEFESS commented in another thread, can a crisis really go on for this long, at this level of severity, without a state of emergency?  I don't see it.

Other point:  I don't believe I've ever explicitly complained about the forum being anti-SSPX, or more liberal, neo-con, etc.  What I did say, or at least what I meant, in the post quoted above, is that it saddens me that people don't think the SSPX is justified in what it's doing.  I hate to see these priests that I love and respect treated as little better than schismatics.  Again, if that makes me one of those who, in the minds of some, complain that the forum has become more liberal, fiat.

Words have meanings.  "Crisis" does not mean "we can do whatever we want, canon law be damned."
(02-06-2013, 09:00 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]There is a crisis. No doubt about that. But the SSPX has declared that there is a state of Emergency within the Church.
That is false. There is no state of emergency. That is just a strawman argument in order to carry on with illicit dispensation of sacraments.
Again, there is a crisis. We would not be here if there weren't one.

How is the crisis manifested?  What are the major problems (doctrinal, liturgical, disciplinary, governmental?), who is responsible for them, and what's being done to correct them?  Are any of the past four (not counting PJP I) Roman Pontiffs, either directly or indirectly, responsible for the crisis, and if so, how so?

I ask these questions of you in honesty and with sincerity.
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