A word of warning to commenters

Louie,

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve said it many times and I sincerely mean it: Your comments make a valuable contribution to this effort; in fact, I think of this blog as our effort to defend the Catholic Faith and not just my own.

This is true even of those commenters who have opinions, oftentimes passionate, that differ from my own. Those contrary opinions can sometimes spark great conversations, and so you won’t see me deleting them in the manner of certain other bloggers.

That said, outside of the obvious norms of decent behavior, I’ve repeatedly asked commenters to abide by just one rule, and it’s obviously time for me to repeat it:

Limit your comments to the topic addressed in the post.

Clearly, a little latitude is called for, and is given. What will no longer be given is free reign to those (and you know who you are) who have been taking advantage of the situation to turn so many posts into a soapbox for sedevacantism.

That particular party is over.

I’ve shown the door to exactly three commenters in the entire time this blog has been up and running, all for the same reason; not for beating the sedevacantism drum specifically, but for turning the combox into a mini-blog for their own cause.

For now, I take the blame for not looking over the combox as diligently as I should have lately. By letting it get out of hand, I know for certain that the blog has become less beneficial to many readers.

With this in mind, I’m going to pay closer attention moving forward, and genuinely hope to find that things are different. If not, no one will be put on notice and there will be no dialogue (way too newchurch!)

Thanks in advance.

Blog Post

Comments (53)

  1. Louie,
    Let me be the first to apologize for stepping up on my soapbox. As my moniker suggests , I am over the top bewildered that right thinking professed Catholics are not overflowing with righteous anger over the seemingly condoned perversions of the clerics.
    The sham zero tolerance, proven to be just that and rolled back onto itself by Pope Francis, has been the last straw to convince me our Church institution has become the haunt of Satan and his minions. I just cannot understand why True Believers are not all screaming from the rafters, coming out in droves demanding the Prelates clean out the filth.

  3. To SOTF:

    With charity and respect…..Would you respond to your neighbors open door and generosity by taking over his kitchen, bathroom, easy chair, tv and frige? Would you take center stage and insult his other guests?
    That is what you do. In effect you act like a boor and bore. May I suggest you begin your own blog. Your reasoning doesn’t justify your actions. Based on it one can justify anything…..The modernist use the same line of reasoning when convenient. You can be right and dead wrong at the same time…..Basta ya….Enough already. You can’t save a man in the desert by using a fire hose to give him a drink of water. God Bless

  4. Louie,

    Do you mind clarifying for us where you currently stand on sedevacantism? I ask as someone who still hasn’t figured out what my position is or should be with regards to the post Vatican 2 church and post Vatican 2 popes/claimants.

    You’ve made it plain enough that you don’t believe Jorge Bergoglio is pope, but I cant recall if you’ve ever said whether you believe he lost his office at some moment in time due to heresy or if he just never was validly elected in the first place.

    Also, how about the other Vatican 2 popes, J23 thru B16, do you believe they were true popes and why or why not? If you’ve already answered this question in a previous post, I apologize for missing it, do you mind sending me the link.

    Thank you so much.

  6. Thank you for exposing your “chest” in this matter. The Sedevacantist agenda is a real drag and why you have allowed them this forum to militate for that position for so many years is perplexing. I think you have done yourself some harm.

  9. Louie, I appreciate your position. I echo what MJEFFORDS1 said above. It certainly seems as though- without explicitly saying so- that your articles/positions seem to point towards Sedevacantism. Now, I am not completely against their position. After all, the Church has yet to definitively pronounce Sedevacantism as a heresy. However, I have not “crossed the Tiber” either. I have contemplated it, but I cannot see my way clear logically to the Sede position. I would appreciate your thoughts if you seem inclined.

  11. Thanks all for your understanding, comments and fair questions about where I stand on the matter of sedevacantism, Francis, previous post-conciliar popes, etc.

    The answers to all of these questions have been plainly given over the course of the past year or so, but knowing that not all readers have been on these pages that entire time, I’ll answer in an upcoming post. There’s too much to say for this comment area.

  12. Its perplexing how one can go around calling the Holy Roman Pontiff a heretic and advocate disobeying his teachings and pratically every traditional Catholic blog will welcome you with open arms. But suggest the opinion that maybe the guy we think is Pope can’t be Pope for the very same heretical things we all agree he says and does, and you become person non grata in the blogosphere. I truly believe that Bergolio could care less about traddies as long as they think he is Pope. But if a large number of trads would make noise challenging his legitimacy, then maybe, just maybe, some eyes in Novus Ordo Land would be opened.

  13. “Behold the rabid sedevacantists trying, even in this thread, to smuggle in their idée fixe. Truly pitiful.”

    I’m sorry, where are these “rabid” sedevacantists? Louie, if you aren’t going to allow sedes go overboard then the anti-sedes, like this one, should be held accountable as well. It’s only fair.

  14. Dear Akita,
    The greatest value I have found in reading and reflecting on what is written in this combox, is that I now have a simple lens through which I filter out weekly homilies and various writings : Is this orthodox or lined up with what has always been taught, or is this a distortion ?

    There are still large areas where I clearly am ignorant of in depth knowledge, and again those who comment here are very helpful with detailed citations.

    And when I can no longer make sense of it, I turn to an old friend, Thomas a Kempis…

    “What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God?”

    Imitation of Christ
    Book One , Chapter One

  15. Louie, I think most of us aren’t trying to make this our “soapbox”. I think most sedes truly believe that sedevacantism answers the issues you correctly raise in your blog and that is why our comments reflect that.

  16. “But suggest the opinion that maybe the guy we think is Pope can’t be Pope for the very same heretical things we all agree he says and does, and you become person non grata in the blogosphere.”

    Yes, Tom. It appears we are the black sheep…if that.

  17. Louie, you have been extremely fair and my criticism is not with you but with other websites.

  18. I’ve said for some years now that this pope must be overthrown, evicted from the papal chair. Only a military solution will solve this problem, not another conference of cardinals or dubia pleadings. Yes, the achilles heel of both the R&R’s and the sedevacantists, lies with the question: are the conclaves valid? Was the secrecy imposed on the conclaves, as of the conclave of 1914, legitmate? Or was it infiltrating freemasons who imposed secrecy in order to do their dirty work in the dark, out of sight of the Catholic faithful? As you’ve said, Tom, if a large enough group of trads challenged his legitimacy as pope, maybe, just maybe some genuine historical research would be done to clarify the situation.

  19. I would agree. Having said that, I think with this most recent blog I think it is important that all commenters have a better understanding what Louie means by “soapbox”. Louie, what does that look like? I am concerned that the anti-sede commenters may think this means they can shut us up at the mere mention of our opinion. I really don’t know whether I crossed some line here.

  20. Dear Louie, I am looking forward to your explanation of where exactly you stand regarding Francis and the post-conciliar popes. I have been following your blog since it started as you can see by my comments. I was totally convinced that you are a sedevacantist or, at least, very understanding of this position and, perhaps, leaning toward this position. Thank you for allowing your visitors to post comments freely. I, for one, am sure that I may be guilty of abusing this privilege at times. Keep up the good work!

  21. Dear jacobum–Your comment above makes more sense if you delete “with charity and respect”. This is a trick of Modernism. Say one thing when you mean another.

  22. I’m a sedevacantist now myself. It’s sacreligious to call Jorge Bergoglio Pope of the Catholic Church. Trad Catholics treat sedes badly, so I’m betting there are a whole bunch of secretly sede Catholics right now. I don’t respond well to bullying though, so I’m with you soap box sedes.

  23. And, thank you Louie for posting this warning– Catholics do not need any further DD drivel from the apostate sedevacantist sect.

  26. I have an idea—why don’t you and your newfound ilk go start your own blog—oh wait, you’d have nothing to say.

  27. See? The sede shriek swarm continues, EVEN IN THIS THREAD. Incredible. The parallels between sedes and hysterical SJW snowflakes are striking. No wonder sedes are almost fully in accord with the miserable likes of the Judas Conciliarist Ganganelli, as one of them here recently proclaimed. “Ganganelli, you and I agree on just about everything,” he said. This says much.

    Now behold the unhinged sedes continue their shriek swarm. Sad!

  32. If there was ANY thread where sedes might be expected to restrain themselves, to bite their tongues until rivers of blood flowed from their mouths, it was this one. Total silence was due from them.

    But no. These raging waves of the sea foaming out their own confusion, these wandering stars simply cannot restrain themselves. Such are adherents of struggling new religions, especially monomaniacal new religions.

    Watch. Even now they’ll be continue to be unable to restrain themselves. They’ll continue resorting to all kinds of maneuvers, many quite subtle, to justify their slavish lack of self-control. Yet that vice will continue to manifest for those with eyes to see.

  33. I think we all need to keep in mind that the Evil One causes confusion, a lot of this confusion its not only with regard to doctrine since V2, but also as to what the exact consequences result from these aberrations in the forms intentions, and language of sacraments, and the promotion of heresies in a multitude of specific situations with various actors. This is a recipe for confusion, even when we do have guidance from history, saints etc… and people are sincerely trying to be as faithful to Christ as possible. We are all trying our best to sift through this crisis with the information we have and the grace and wisdom provided to us. We don’t all agree, we don’t all have the same experiences, knowledge, perspective, etc…so we reach different conclusions, and I think just posting in the comments of blogs provide opportunities to exhibit and grow in charity and humility. We are all suffering, we all struggle with righteous anger, we all thirst for justice, I think as commenters here, we help each other most when our actions are guided by charity even when we are frustrated. Furthermore, I appreciate all that I have learned about from Louie and everyone else here, I just hate to see the evil one getting any satisfaction in his confusion leading to a deterioration of our virtue.

  34. Tom A

    Sedevancantists, including you, have been provided numerous times with counter-arguments as to why we don’t adopt that position. At this point we are only going round and around the mulberry bush.

    On the whole, Francis is another beast entirely in some of the brazen-ness he pushes, which is undoubtedly due to the slow decline of Popes since the 1800s to maintain the Teachings of the Church, which culminated in Vatican II.

    The idea that the Holy Spirit makes of the Popes a puppet devoid of free will and completely immune from erroneous thought and decision-making, is demonstrably bogus.

    Formal, obstinate heresy must be established. We are of the opinion that the VII Popes from John XXIII – Benedict XVI are material heretics, unless demonstrable evidence can be provided that they said and did what they did outside the confines of invincible ignorance or general confusion. Their culpability is therefore up for grabs, and that extends particularly to all of the periti, potentially; given they needed to answer for the Church’s supposed failure to properly interpret the Scriptures and encode their rationale in dogmatic councils, and use the full weight of Papal authority to enforce it, when Darwin, Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein said they were wrong. Which was an attack on the Church at a foundational level and thus they had to reconcile the Traditional faith with what they honestly believed was actual reality. And what’s even more amusing is that neither Vatican II, nor any of the VII Popes addressed the Galileo Affair, with even John Paul II and Benedict XVI coming to the defence of the Church’s stand on Geocentrism even as with the same mouth they sought to undermine it by recourse to vaguery, stating that according to the reining paradigm of Relativity the modernists adhere to today, they the Church of the past couldn’t be proven wrong. They just apologized that the Church wasn’t “nice” enough…

    All of Christendom believed in one consistent account of Origins and our place in the Universe and defended it against alternate views of the pagan philosophers and sciences, based on what Scripture and Tradition restricted.

    Then all of a sudden, it flipped entirely around thanks to the naturalists and atheistic philosophers, aided by the modernist clergy of their day who called for the Church to get with the times and modernize.

    Given I have asked Sedes point blank as to whether or not they accept the Dogmatic Teachings of the Council of Trent, never to interpret Scripture apart from the consensus of the Church Fathers, who were 100% geocentric, and provided the condemnations of Copernicus and Galileo’s propositions as being “FORMALLY HERETICAL’ and have either received no replies or a lot of dancing around, it’s clear that many are not in it to arrive at truth, but rather to stubbornly promote their position as being the one true factual and only recourse, when they cannot account for all the facts. So it is clear that many hold this position from an emotional standpoint, and thus hate the idea that they might be wrong because they would then be culpable for leading people out of the Church due to error on their accord; an accusation they have no problem throwing on those sticking to the Novus Ordo, showing that many sedes don’t like the taste of their own medicine.

    I believe that many times, I, Louie and others have all stated we are perfectly willing to entertain the sede position (with regards to the theory that claims all the Popes following Pius XII are not Popes). But none of you can demonstrate this sufficiently.

    And even with regards to Francis, there is the added complication of Benedict’s resignation, which if I’m not mistaken, I believe Louie himself has brought this up as a strong possibility that Benedict’s resignation is invalid, maybe even coerced. I believe Fr. Gruner also entertained this as do others like Ann Barnhardt etc.

    There is also FATIMA to deal with, which many sedes pooh-pooh and dismiss claiming they don’t have to believe it, no different than the modernists. And Louie, no doubt, always keeps the Messages and Prophecies of Fatima in mind, whose seer obeyed the Popes right up to John Paul II (Potentially Fake Sr. Lucias notwithstanding). And you’d think that if the modernists wanted to discredit Fatima, all they had to do was obey and follow the directions, wait for nothing to happen (assuming there’s no Pope), then just discredit Fatima altogether by claiming that given they followed the instructions (with a false Pope) and nothing occurred, it couldn’t therefore be true, or come up with some modernist spin. But instead they’ve gone to lengths to run far around it, and further dug themselves into an unnecessary conspiracy too large to re-spin. Let’s also not forget the fact that the Miracle of Fatima has a Sun moving and dancing around a fixed Earth, in line with the Teachings of the Church and Holy Pontiffs who condemned Galileo. A secret strongly hinting at the Vatican Council II, convened, according to Ratzinger, to address the falout of the Galileo Affair, and according to those who’ve read the contents, seems to refer to a chain of apostasy that seems to stem from someone at the “top.” And I don’t think they meant the Pope’s personal secretary. Hence why John XXIII referred to his “pontificate.” And why following Pope Leo XIII’s vision, it would be the Pastor who would be struck and which he, the Pope, fell down ‘seemingly dead.’

    There is a lot more going on here. So the sede bandwagon will just have to park in line with the others when to comes to interpreting events over in Rome. Do note that many of us here, including Louie, interpret things in light of the Message of Fatima. Which unlike the sedes, we do not dismiss lightly.

  35. And you still haven’t named the supposed “foaming”, “rabid” sedes. I think it’s pretty clear which posters are foaming at the mouth “in this thread” ….Hint: it’s not the sedes.

    I trust that Louie will address these types of comments on his blog as well.

  37. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. This concept means that our actions show others what we believe. The entire Trad Catholic movement can call whoever they want the Pope, but the fact is that we all act like we are our own Pope. Why? Because all of us refuse to follow the conciliarists in Rome. Our actions and our opinions on these blogs show the world that we are not in communion with conciliar Rome. Some claim they are and others admit they are not. So the question should be, does salvation require communion with an Apostate Rome?

  38. If St Vincent Ferrer & St Catherine of siena couldn’t agree then we here on this blog have no chance on agreeing.

  40. The problem with the classic sedes is not their denial of papal authority but the thesis that the new rite of ordination is invalid. This is highly problematic and speculative. The New Order Church isn’t Cathokic though so people should extend some charity to Catholics trying to figure this all out. Trads make it sound lime their position is unassailable, when in fact it is shot through with logical and theological problems vis a vis the nature of the Papacy and Church and the hnbleievable wreckage and apostasy of aggiornamento. There is not a single side in this struggle which rests securely, so no one should be dictatorial in their condemnations.

  41. A growing percentage of Trads are going sede when it comes to Francis. How can they not? Most still hide their convictions out of fear of reperisal. This is a crisis for Trad bloggers given their dogmatic anti-sede positions since the 1980s. Everyone needs to recognize that Francis is a different case and needs to be treated in a different manner. By defending Francis as a true pope, Trads are ultimately destroying their own credibility. This crisis is only just starting folks…..

  42. I think the line Louie is trying to draw is to keep the comments relevant to the subject of the article.

  43. If this blog is going to go the Salza route and we all hold hands and pray for the “Holy Father” while piling calumny upon him and calling him a heretic then I’m ending my donations. As a Thomist I must defend the principle of non contradiction.

  44. Unfortunately, the question is not just who is or who isn’t pope st any given time.
    The question is how do we lives as Catholics with so many questions arising from the fact we have had a number of popes who have not preached the Catholic Faith as it was handed down from the apostles.
    A major issue is the fact that the Sacraments have been altered – are they still valid if the form has changed? And the consequences for the practice of the Faith would be enormous if there was a doubt about the validity of the Sacraments.
    Cor Iesu Sacratissimum miserere nobis.

  45. St Vincent of Ferrer also supported an antipope and got the King of Spain to force the true pope to resign. We are in good company! Take that! Dick and Jane Catholics.

  46. Ursula, your points are very noteworthy. Indeed the sacraments were changed. Baptism ceremony was cntl-p from the Archheretic Cramners 1549 Book of Common Prayer. What a sacrilege! People being baptized into the Church of England in the cultural context and sense. The New Mass and its heretical Lutheran formula of consecration in the vernacular was almost certainly invalid from 1967 until 2011. (Though Deo gratias given the potential for sacrilege…God forbid all the personal unworthy communions I made as a Novus Ordite). The New Rite of Ordination is not Roman….the NuRite priests and bishops are ordained into a new, man-made ecumenical Rite which is again, not Roman, not historic and a grave sacrilege and a scandal at best. The Sacrament of the Sick is a farce, invalid and a sacrilege in the manner it is distributed to folks with a common cold ect. And no wonder some folks are confused??? Not to mention the blasphemies scandals….one coming to mind was witnessing and attemtping to stop “lay ministers” pouring consecrated wine down the drain after Mass in 1999 at the local Cathedral no less. This is a latae sentenctiae excommunication offense and since the Rector knew about it, he too would have been latae sententiae excommunicated himself. But sure lets go around condemning people for not accepting the blessings of the Church’s hierarchy.

  47. The AKA Catholic comments sections serves as a honeypot for sedevecantist evangelists, because Louie’s articles attract people who see there’s a huge crisis within Catholicism and want to understand it, deal with it, and even somehow help get it fixed. This crisis got publicly launched at Vatican II, and it’s been heading toward total apostasy ever since and is now beginning to enter exit velocity with the arch heretic Bergoglio at the controls. However, preparations for the VII launch go back to the time of Galileo where the heresy of heliocentrism began to creep in. We’ve had heresy and toleration of heresy, at least implicitly, at the highest levels for a very long time. This crisis will continue for as long as the toleration of heresy in the institutional church continues. Our Lord alludes to the ongoing crisis in asking “… the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” Luke 18:8

  48. ^Indeed, john6.

    *****************

    Thank you for laying down the law regarding the privilege of being able participating in your online mission to defend the Faith, Mr. Verrecchio.

    I think we could all benefit from being more gracious not only towards one another but also keeping in mind the generosity and privilege of being allowed to comment freely on this website upon which Mr. Verrecchio spends so many hours, dollars, bandwidth, bytes and braincells to keep going.

    Thanks and God Bless.

  49. Any anger in the comments should be directed towards the cause of the anger: Francis and the V2 calamity.

  50. Dear Tom A,

    This is probably your best post thus far, since it reveals the core of Traditionalism in all of its manifestations: Rome is wrong. However, the only way for Rome to be wrong, to have failed, to have defected, to be apostate, is for the dogmas specifically declaring the absolute and complete impossibility of such a situation to ever arise. Even old Canon Law, with confirmation of the Catholic Encyclopedia, ironically enough, declares, regarding the canons and laws applying during Sedevacante, that exclusively the Roman Curia substitutes the Roman Pope in all functions -except that of making innovations in the Church-, since the Church is maimed without its source and foundation, for, as is explicit from the dogmas, the Church and all its Graces are generated from the Roman Pontiff, not the inverse, despite the contradictions inherently arising from the very mode of election, where inferiors consecrate a superior, an impossibility.

    Indeed, if Rome is wrong and Traditionalism is right, it becomes clear that Roman Pontiffs are useless and a hindrance, anyways, since, as can be clearly gathered from all of Traditionalism, the faithful have better kept what Rome, which alone claims for itself divine powers to rule at will and arbitrarily over the Faith, has not. The only way for Sedevacantism and Traditionalism at large to be right, is if a rival Holy See where to exist continuously since the defection of Rome, and only the Palmarian heretics can validly claim this title for themselves, though to their own condemnation, seeing their own many heresies and innovations. But, as Johnno has mildly noticed, where were all of the Sedevacantists throughout the ages every time Rome unilaterally changed doctrine and innovated, against the canons of the Ecumenical Councils of the First Millenium? Read them all, and see if many previous “Vatican Councils” have not already happened before!

    You can only keep the unchanged, immutable, original, Orthodox Catholic Faith if you do what the original Sedevacantists did long ago. When Bishop Reinkens procclaimed Pius IX an antipope, he spoke for all of Christendom, upholding the Old Catholic Faith in all of its integrity. I will pray for you to the same, and realize where the root of the contradictions and problems lie, which must be done by honestly searching for and in Truth Divine, wherever He Leads you.

    God bless Louie for his efforts and good will. I pray he forgives this slightly longer comment, seeing it is relevant to the discussion and topic.

    -AOC

  51. Errata:
    Please Read:
    The only way for Sedevacantism and Traditionalism at large to be right is if a rival Holy See were to exist continuously since the defection of Rome…
    Instead of:
    The only way for Sedevacantism and Traditionalism at large to be right, is if a rival Holy See where to exist continuously since the defection of Rome…

  52. Errata Continued:
    Please read:
    However, the only way for Rome to be wrong, to have failed, to have defected, to be apostate, is for the dogmas specifically declaring the absolute and complete impossibility of such a situation to ever arise to be false.
    Instead of:
    However, the only way for Rome to be wrong, to have failed, to have defected, to be apostate, is for the dogmas specifically declaring the absolute and complete impossibility of such a situation to ever arise.

Comments are closed.