Trads Make Their Own Reps
#21
Inpefess,

Just to clarify... I  absolutely agree with you here. My questions were intended to be rhetorical.

"The real problems in the Church are caused by Modernists. They are the cause; sedevacantists are just a symptom."
- Amen to that!
Reply
#22
(02-20-2012, 06:21 AM)Varus Wrote: However, I am under the impression that there is a lot of unnecessary Sede-bashing quite often. I do not share their view, but the fact they that have that view doesn't invalidate their Catholicity, does it? Followers of a false Pope in earlier times became saints, in spite of believing that the wrong man was Pope. Sedes generally do not deny the principle of the Papacy, do they?
One thing is to ban propagating the thesis here, which is totally at the discretion of the Forum Owner, but equating them with heretics, schismatics and such really isn't necessary. It sometimes sounds like they are the Great Evil.

I have noticed a few people lately who engage in this bashing and I hope to see it stop.  Perhaps if those of us who find it objectionable requested Vox to take stronger measures to discourage it, she would do something.
Reply
#23
(02-20-2012, 02:12 AM)Tapatio Wrote: Whenever it comes up sublimely or full guns blazing like yesterdays thread in the main forum when a Sede was promoting Sedevacantism straight out. He even started a ALL CAPS THREAD. These people try to make Catholics second guess the promise Christ gave us in regards to His Church.
(I put in quotes "opinion", because sedes think it is of personal opinion to reject the papacy. BUT for Catholics, Pope Benedict XVI is not an opinion. He is The Pope.) The more Catholics leave the One True Faith, the less work the diablo has to do except fill in more reservations spots throughout hell.

Mind the discussions of sedevacantism and posts that would prompt sedevacantists to defend sedevacantism. That topic isn't allowed to be discussed here one way or the other.
Reply
#24
(02-19-2012, 08:45 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Traditionalism appeals to a certain sort of person. I don't know that there is much you can do about it.

True story, look at all the melancholics here (I'm a closet one myself). IRL I make it my mission to emphasis the fun parts of traditional Catholicism. I think the answer to the world's disgusting notions of "fun is not prudery and puritanism but childlike joy and gratitude for the good things in life (think Chesterton, for example).
Reply
#25
GA, did you even read the post from Vox immediately before yours?
Reply
#26
Referring to Catholics who post on weblogs, namely Catholic Answers Form and Fish Eaters, I would say that the Catholics who post on Fish Eaters for the most part, are more well formed in their knowledge of the Faith and moral matters that those Catholics who post on CA, who seem to be ignorant [for whatever reason] on many aspects of the Faith.

Also the Catholics that post on FE have a much more developed sense of humor that other Catholic bloggers.
Just my observation.
Reply
#27
(02-20-2012, 12:37 PM)JayneK Wrote: GA, did you even read the post from Vox immediately before yours?
Not till now. I was reading Varus's post. And responded to it.
I am sorry if I offended you.
Reply
#28
(02-20-2012, 12:53 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(02-20-2012, 12:37 PM)JayneK Wrote: GA, did you even read the post from Vox immediately before yours?
Not till now. I was reading Varus's post. And responded to it.
I am sorry if I offended you.

She's not talking about offending her. She's talking about respecting the rules enough not to discuss sedevacantism here. Not only is it against the forum rules, which Vox Clamantis just stated, but it is not fair to sedevacantists, who, if they respect the rules, can't respond to the constant jabs that are made at them. If they respond, they are reported for "promoting sedevacantism." Please do not bait them.
Reply
#29
(02-20-2012, 04:13 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(02-20-2012, 12:53 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(02-20-2012, 12:37 PM)JayneK Wrote: GA, did you even read the post from Vox immediately before yours?
Not till now. I was reading Varus's post. And responded to it.
I am sorry if I offended you.

She's not talking about offending her. She's talking about respecting the rules enough not to discuss sedevacantism here. Not only is it against the forum rules, which Vox Clamantis just stated, but it is not fair to sedevacantists, who, if they respect the rules, can't respond to the constant jabs that are made at them. If they respond, they are reported for "promoting sedevacantism." Please do not bait them.

Yes.  You have stated the problem very clearly.
Reply
#30
GottmitunsAlex Wrote:Unlike a sedevacantist, the saints of old, never rejected the papacy and waited until the Church declared that pope to be false or an anti-pope.
And unlike the sedevacantists, they did not pass judgement whilst that pope was in office.

Not true. During the Great Western Schism, St. Vincent Ferrer, who had once accepted Pedro de Luna as Benedict XIII, later rejected him, saying that he was a schismatic and no longer pope. St. Vincent had never accepted the other camp of popes, or the Urbanists, and looked to the Council of Pisa to decide who was pope.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)