The Sedevacantist Thesis subforum

[Heinrich]

You are accusing me of emasculating my husband by commenting on this situation, yet baiting me to say more? I don't think so.

Considering he is doing it while sucking up to the forum owner and fighting with women, I doubt that anyone takes him seriously.  I don't think you need to worry about it.

Why are you even sticking your nose into this? Are they your children?

[Jayne]

You are accusing me of emasculating my husband by commenting on this situation, yet baiting me to say more? I don't think so.

Considering he is doing it while sucking up to the forum owner and fighting with women, I doubt that anyone takes him seriously.  I don't think you need to worry about it.

Why are you even sticking your nose into this? Are they your children?

I appreciate seeing a woman stand by her man.  I think such behaviour should be encouraged.

[Bonaventure]

I'll post this for all to see here, lest anyone even think I am trying to keep my thoughts hidden:

The very fact that this all needs to be hidden, rather than answered, is the final nail in their coffins.

I don't know them or particularly care for their book, and the merits or lack thereof of whatever they or anyone else has to say really doesn't have to deal with making one subforum for registered members only.

I can tell you that we don't want a particular poster, one who I know has bothered you personally, on this forum, especially as a one topic poster.

We really don't want anyone inordinately posting about any one thing, and that goes for the extreme pro sedes and the antis (I can think of one poster who I flat out questioned "why do you feel the need to have to prove to the world you beat the sedes?")

At the end of the day, I would be fine with a thread saying "hey, this book uses scumbag sources." What I don't want is the impression we have seen, one or two posters constantly making threads going back and forth at each other with no end in sight.

At the end of the day, I am disappointed that people would leave the best traditional Catholic forum in the English speaking world because one sub section, which is very focused in scope, is only open to members only.

If that means we are only losing people here to bash or herald sedevacantism, so be it. You and I know there is so much more to living our Faith in 2017. That's why I hope you in particular don't leave, because I know you can offer a valuable insight on so many aspects of Catholicism.

[Bonaventure]

They're so inordinately obsessed with this topic. And the fact that so many of them dropped off the face of the earth after they knew that dedicated forum users, and not a random passerby, could read their forums, shows they wanted to satiate their egos whilst only discussing what they are inordinately obsessed with.

We have, always had, and always will have sedes posting here about living a Catholic life, their day to day struggles, devotions, views on the news, and even occasionally, why they believe what they believe.

The latest influx of people, whether pro or anti a silly theological tome, didn't contribute to this place. Good riddance.

[Stonewall]

They're so inordinately obsessed with this topic. And the fact that so many of them dropped off the face of the earth after they knew that dedicated forum users, and not a random passerby, could read their forums, shows they wanted to satiate their egos whilst only discussing what they are inordinately obsessed with.

We have, always had, and always will have sedes posting here about living a Catholic life, their day to day struggles, devotions, views on the news, and even occasionally, why they believe what they believe.

The latest influx of people, whether pro or anti a silly theological tome, didn't contribute to this place. Good riddance.

Very insulting.  Such true Christian charity.

I did not join the forum for to be solely superficial as if what I believe is irrelevant.  Now that is not to say there are not many good discussions on a variety of topics between people of good will, good Catholics, who are using cyber communication to fulfill their social desires and needs.  Wonderful.  This is all well and good.

But the conversations I find as having value for myself are those on the crisis and their theological basis.  Obviously these discussions are going to be founded on our view of the current state of the Church and argued from these foundational positions.  Conversing on other topics for myself not related to the crisis are fulfilled by having discussions in person with other Catholics, family and friends.  Yet you chastise people like myself because we are not as in need of a virtual world as maybe some of the primary members.  Bravo, charity on display.

The Sede forum being public or private in this sense made little difference.  Given it is restricted to members only and given most members already have demonstrated having no interest in having a rational discussion on the nature of the crisis, I would think you would have to agree that the forum no longer provides any value to me personally.  Hence, finding a lack of similar interest, I see no purpose to posting to myself.

[Miriam_M]

[I moved it to the sede forum instead.]

[INPEFESS]

Kaesekopf, these questions are exclusively directed to you: 

1.  Will I need a new username and password to register?

2.  If I hold that there exists an objective practical doubt regarding the status of the papacy that impinges moral obligations upon our daily Catholic activity, but that only the Church has the authority sufficient to render the status of the papacy (whatever it might be) a matter of dogmatic fact binding the consciences of all the faithful to acceptance of that dogmatic fact, am I considered a "Sede" according to this forum's rules?

3.  Is defense of this withholding of moral assent pending the absolute certainty of the status of the papacy provided only by the Church permitted outside the sedevantist subforum?

[Kaesekopf]

Kaesekopf, these questions are exclusively directed to you: 

1.  Will I need a new username and password to register?

2.  If I hold that there exists an objective practical doubt regarding the status of the papacy that impinges moral obligations upon our daily Catholic activity, but that only the Church has the authority sufficient to render the status of the papacy (whatever it might be) a matter of dogmatic fact binding the consciences of all the faithful to acceptance of that dogmatic fact, am I considered a "Sede" according to this forum's rules?

3.  Is defense of this withholding of moral assent pending the absolute certainty of the status of the papacy provided only by the Church permitted outside the sedevantist subforum?

Ok.

1)  nope. Why would you?

2)  id say a sede is one who believes Francis is not pope (or some other claimant is pope).  So, you'd be considered half a sede? 

3)  I would say you are permitted to defend your position/stance outside the subforum, but I'd be reluctant to see long or multiple posts promoting or advancing it.  Doesn't mean you CAN'T do so, just don't make it the only thing you post about, yknow? 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[INPEFESS]

Kaesekopf, these questions are exclusively directed to you: 

1.  Will I need a new username and password to register?

2.  If I hold that there exists an objective practical doubt regarding the status of the papacy that impinges moral obligations upon our daily Catholic activity, but that only the Church has the authority sufficient to render the status of the papacy (whatever it might be) a matter of dogmatic fact binding the consciences of all the faithful to acceptance of that dogmatic fact, am I considered a "Sede" according to this forum's rules?

3.  Is defense of this withholding of moral assent pending the absolute certainty of the status of the papacy provided only by the Church permitted outside the sedevantist subforum?

Ok.

1)  nope. Why would you?

I thought the subforum itself would be restricted only to other members of the subforum. Mea culpa.

2)  id say a sede is one who believes Francis is not pope (or some other claimant is pope).  So, you'd be considered half a sede? 

Not really. I don't believe he is not the pope. But I don't believe he must he the pope until proven not to be either. There's a false dichotomy surrounding the status of the pope that has permeated the traditional world for decades. We are divided over--what a failure to make proper distinctions results in--a red herring. Your forum's rules don't chart this territory because mainstream traditional Catholicism itself doesn't acknowledge itsexistence. We are told there are only two options. The myriad of approved theological opinions that create an entire landscape of historico-theological possibilities is pigeonholed in favor of a hyper-generalized dichotomy rivaled only by American bipartisanship in its practical convenience.

3)  I would say you are permitted to defend your position/stance outside the subforum, but I'd be reluctant to see long or multiple posts promoting or advancing it.  Doesn't mean you CAN'T do so, just don't make it the only thing you post about, yknow? 

Sure. I think you know I spend most of my efforts in the Predestination threads, but I haven't posted about this topic for awhile, so I may return to it soon.

[Miriam_M]

I don't believe he is not the pope. But I don't believe he must he the pope until proven not to be either. There's a false dichotomy surrounding the status of the pope that has permeated the traditional world for decades....We are told [incorrectly] there are only two options.

[My addition]

I agree with this, and agree that the false dichotomy has confused traditionalist discussions about the papacy and its role in the crisis of the Church, and has magnified divisions.

Because this thread is about forum rules and not the place to elaborate about the SV Thesis, I won't engage with INP about it here, but I would look forward to his discussing the false dichotomy at some point on another thread.

I spend most of my efforts in the Predestination threads, but I haven't posted about this topic for awhile, so I may return to it soon.

[Mono no aware]

I don't believe he is not the pope. But I don't believe he must he the pope until proven not to be either.

Schrödinger's pope!

[Lynne]

I don't believe he is not the pope. But I don't believe he must he the pope until proven not to be either.

Schrödinger's pope!

Still missing the "Thanks" button!

[INPEFESS]

I don't believe he is not the pope. But I don't believe he must he the pope until proven not to be either.

Schrödinger's pope!

Well, I would find that amusing were it fitting, but that's not at all an appropriate representation of the problem, since the question is more epistemological than ontological (but does really prove my point about the false dichotomy that saturates traditional Catholic thought), but since this is not a thread to debate the topic, I'm not going to comment further, except to say that I don't think it's an appropriate comment to make here, given that I am not allowed to reply to this misrepresentation of information. I was not elaborating my position to defend or promote it. I elaborated it so that Kaesekopf could better answer my question regarding the forum rules.