I’ll keep this brief: First, I am traveling this week and spending a bit of (all too rare) time with my family; wife, kids and grandkids. Way overdue. I may or may not post anything new until next week.
Secondly: I appreciate the passion of our commenters, but I’m literally a hair away from shutting the combox down altogether.
Any number of times, I’ve posted here asking commenters to keep their comments on point and brief. Two simple requests. I do not allow off topic comments as much as I have no time or desire to police them.
Lastly: There is an under utilized forum here. Get familiar with it as this may well end up being the only place where readers can post their thoughts here.
Have a blessed, well deserved rest with all you love.
May St. Christopher protect you!
Louie, you have been far too patient with the combox. Thank you for addressing this issue—AGAIN! We are all guilty in varying degrees. Enjoy this well-earned time with your family.
That’s the whole point. The SSPX want your com box shut down because the sedes (and others) have educated themselves about what the Church has taught on Church membership, visibility of the Church, etc. and the SSPX partisans continually distort those teachings. 95% of the problems could be handled in the com box if the sedes only made sede arguments when they were on topic and the R&R’s were required to identify where they attend Mass (my suscpicion is that 99.9999% of those who make R&R arguments and pollute the com box are SSPX partisans who are being told to attack this blog). If they self-identify as SSPX Mass attendees they should be told (1) name calling is verboten; (2) all in-depth anti-sede arguments have to be made in the forum; and (3) every single time they identify a fellow poster as a schismatic or a heretic they have to identify exactly how their fellow posters are schismatic, or what dogma their fellow posters deny. How many times does it have to be brought to the attention of the R&R types that well-founded withdrawal of obedience and avoidance of a manifest heretic is not a schismatic act, or that withdrawal of obedience and avoidance does not equal a solemn juridical act? Those claims are lies, but yet the R&R types are permitted to make them over and over again. I suspect that the SSPX adopted their position not because it is right, but because they would lose their Mass attendees if they said the Pope was a heretic.
Good points raised. Why not take this to the forums, St Cyprian?
I go to the SSPX and I don’t think Paul VI thru Francis have been popes. Its a great discussion to have, and the forums would be the proper place to hold it.
You just cannot call it a day, can you?
Paranoia, a desire for special treatment, crying like a little baby and the usual intense dislike of the organisation that saved the traditional Mass and priests formed in the pre-Vatican II theology.
What a bunch of utter ingrates, full.of pride and hate!
That’s my lot for this thread. Enjoy yourselves.
The monomania of sedes is truly, truly pitiful to behold.
Excellent points. The problem is that there is no active moderator to make sure that all are following these rules.
Unanswered questions directed to The Papal Subject:
“@The Great Stalin: You said this:
“His hypocrisy is astonishing, given that sedevacantists declare Bergoglio deposed on nothing but their own authority!”
With all due respect, I can only conclude that you are knowingly misrepresenting the position most sedes hold, including Tom A.
I will turn it around on you and state my position this way. I ascribe to the fifth opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, that a Pope who manifestly professes heresy ipso facto loses his office without a declaration by the Church. In fact, such a declaration, if juridical in nature, is impossible since it would imply that subordinates (e.g., the Cardinals) have jurisdiction over the Pope.
Further, it is no longer permissible (it it ever was) to contend that an inferior entity of the Church can separate the Pope from his Office for heresy while recognizing him as Pope in view of Vatican I. Thus, those who hold the fourth opinion described by St. Robert Bellarmine and attributed to Cajetan and who claim that inferiors must perform a juridical act to separate the Pope from his office while recognizing him as Pope are heretics.
@TGS: Do you argue that I misrepresent the fifth opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine?
If so, please specify exactly how I do so?
If not, is it your argument that the fifth opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine is heretical?
When, and on what basis did it become heretical?
Was the fifth opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine heretical on its face when he proposed it because of prior Church teaching?
Or did it become heretical based on subsequent Church teaching?
If it became heretical based on subsequent Church teaching, what teaching was that?
Is it your opinion that even in view of Vatican I it is still possible for a subordinate agency of the Church to perform a juridical act whereby the Pope is separated from his Office while the subordinate agency of the Church continues to recognize the Pope as Pope?”
Sorry, the first should have stated “Unanswered questions directed to The Great Stalin”, not the Papal Subject. The Papal Subject is a valued participant and I would miss his contributions if the com box was shut down.
Another question directed to The Great Stalin left unanswered:
“@The Great Stalin: You said this:
Perhaps the sedevacantists’ core position is that the Catholic Church has changed into a heretical, bastard Church and is thus divorced from, has separated from, Christ. I am very sympathetic to this view in many ways, but as readers might now know, my position is that they have gone far too far and have put themselves in a state of schism and even heresy. Why? BECUASE THEIR STANCE IPSO FACTO REJECTS THE CATHOLIC DOGMA THAT THE CHURCH IS A VISIBLE INSTITUTION WHICH IS ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC WHICH IS RULED BY A POPE.” [Empasis added]
@TGS: Is it your position that those who believe that the Mystical Body of Christ can be obscured in the World from those who are seeking Her by those who sin against Her visible bonds, e.g., heretics and schismatics, are heretics themselves? Is it you position that the Mystical Body of Christ is perfectly visible in an unwavering manner at all times to those who are seeking Her? If that is your position, can you provide citations to Church teaching that this is how the doctrine of visibility is to be understood?”
An example of an “answered question”:
“@The Great Stalin: How does this passage not convict you:
‘”For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”
2 John 1 : 7 – 11
You apparently accept Pope Francis to the extent that he does not teach error, even though you know him to be a heretic. How do you not “receive him”? How do you not communicate with his wicked works?”
Reply by the Great Stalin:
“Oh, convict away. All you sede snakes can do is accuse people of heresy, convict them, cast them into hell. You are evil mockers of Christ’s Church, not its supporters.”
“@The Great Stalin: Reading comprehension: I did not say “I convict you”, I said this scripture passage contains a teaching that should, given your position, be of great concern to you. Many participating in this thread, or reading it, would be interested in a reasoned reply presented by you regarding why the teaching in this scripture passage does not convict you. Instead, you call me a ‘sede snake’.
According to you, am I a schismatic, heretic, or both? If you consider me a heretic, what heresies do I have to abjure?”
Another unanswered question, this time with “Ignatio” who was clearly an SSPX partisan:
“@Ignatio: You said this:
“This explains, not only why the sede heretics believe the Catholic Church today is a false Church, but it also explains why they are unable to point to where the true Church is.”
Are sedes heretics, schismatics or both, according to you? If you consider sedes heretics, what dogmas of the Church do they deny?”
Not sure if you should have gone down that road in this specific combox St Cyprian. I’m sure there will be future opportunities to ask Benedict Carver, uh, I mean TGS, those same questions.
The pattern is clear. The Great Stalin and Ignatio are SSPX partisans who push the SSPX corporate line. They have gotten tired of dealing with me and instead attack sede commentators like Tom A and 2Vermont because they are not as obsessive as I am and don’t include support for their position in every comment.
Going further back, the now-missing “The Catholic Thinker” was another SSPX partisan who actually advocated heresy on this blog when he claimed that VI did not foreclose the trial of a Pope by inferiors.
I do not want any of these posters banished. I am just sick and tired of being called a schismatic or heretic by these posters who are pushing a corporate line.
Looks like there are a few posts aimed at provoking Louie until he does away with the Comboxes. Please don’t do it!
He’s done us the great service of (yet again) proving the wild-eyed rabidity of sede monomania.
I don’t think we need moderation, its just that the corporate actors have to be held to the standard of making their arguments in the forum. Of course, we already know how that turns out – no one reads the forum – and the corporate actors know that. That’s why the corporate actors are always injecting R&R arguments into the com box.
@The Great Stalin: I defy you to find posts authored by me that demonstrate that I am in the habit of attacking the Society. I may have said something critical of the Society at some point, but I am not in the habit of doing it! Obviously, I fully support the effective approach of the Society, i.e., withdrawing obedience and avoiding the VII Church!
“If the law favors you argue the law. If the facts favor you, argue the facts. If neither favor you pound the table and call your opponent names.”
Here we go again! Louie, I think the combox is on its way to the guillotine. It’s an incorrigible crowd you have here. What a shame. The combox should be a source of information, debate and discussion in a respectful adult fashion, while staying on topic. Perhaps, lusp is correct. Is it intentional?
So obviously as adults we shouldn’t have to dump this problem on Mr. V, and wait for his response, should we?
Tom A et al has to resist the temptation to show how every Church event demonstrates the sede thesis.
The SSPX R&R partisans similarly have to resist the temptation to always say, “well, whatever the latest Church outrage is, don’t make it worse by becoming a sede heretic”.
We have to resist the reflexive temptation to call those who are scandalized by the state of the Church “heretics” or “schismatics”.
We have to be willing to put our money where our mouth is and retire to the forum as suggested by Mr. V to settle our differences.
Do we have an agreement? We can start now with the questions left unanswered by The Great Stalin, e.g., the question having to do with the fourth and fifth opinions of St. Robert Bellarmine.
The St. Cyprian fellow whose first post laments the desire of the SSPX to want to shut down your combox, then goes on to rant in a total of 10 posts which illustrates the lunacy that has the blog owner on the verge of shutting down the combox.
Here’s a fun little syllogism:
Cyprian asserts that the SSPX wants to shut down this combox
Cyprian then engages in behavior that the blog owner has warned will shut down the combox
Cyprian must therefore be SSPX
If you can’t ban individual abusers and you don’t have the resources to police the content in the combox, you have no recourse but to shut it down.
OPen a thread in the forums please St. C. Louie is going to shut this down here.
This is the proper place to discuss these things.
I have already made an attempt to post two topics for discussion in the “All things Catholic” section of the forum but I can’t see them now. Can anyone else?
I am fairly certain we need moderation for various reasons….and those reasons and need for moderation won’t change in the forum.
I enjoyed reading your posts TGS even if I may not have agreed with everything. Your smart and fair and I believe you read and respect the Truth and do not just comment to shut others down because they post an inconvenient opinion to yours or post insulting lies and call names.
God Bless and if you have your own blog please provide a link!
Quite honestly, I find it telling that Louie does not make it a point to require commenters to refrain from such name-calling and judgments. Just be on point and brief. As a result, I couldn’t care less if he shuts down this combox.
In this very thread (incredible!) you’ve provided abundant evidence of the rabid sede lack of self-control and indeed total disrespect for Louie.
The same thing happened in a previous post by Louie regarding comments.
In truth, comments should have been shut down long ago. As they’ve repeatedly proven, rabid sedes simply can’t control themselves. Sad!
Alphonse, I would agree that this thread was certainly not the place to bring up previous arguments.
My biggest issue with this combox is the lack of charity and respect and the incessant name-calling and finger pointing. I really think that if we all avoided this, this combox would be a very different experience.
It is so funny. On the last blog there were three hundred and forty-eight comments. Seventy-four were from sweepoutthefilth and 69 were from The Great Stalin. That means that those two caused over 40% of the comments and each one wrote much more than Vereccio did during the original blog. Sweepoutthefilth will probably see if I maybe counted wrong and call me a liar or a pederast but counting off by a couple is an honest mistake and she is like a Serpent who deceives. She still will not tell us who she is or how she knows every bishop and priest. Maybe a solution is to get rid of these two people sweepoutthefilth and Stalin causing trouble like with that other guy. That’s “my2cents” about the blog and comments.
AlphonsusJr: I know for a fact that I have never attacked you even once! So your statement is a bit of an exaggeration, isn’t it?
“St. Cyprian” is so unhinged, I can only conclude that s/he is either Blunderass or some other enemy of Catholicism trying their best to make Catholics look like fools and kooks. If “St. Cyprian” is a legit sede, s/he has pushed a new standard for monomanical sedes. Very Bizarre.
That was funny
Someone else used the word “lunacy.” It really is a kind of madness. Or did this “St. Cyprian” really, as you say, go out of his way here to make sedes seem like lunatics? But I’ve seen such lunacy from so many sedes before. For instance, the Cathinfo board is a total madhouse.
@Sursum Corda: As a practical matter, one might consider my claim that the SSPX has a “corporate position” on the R&R/sede issue as outlandish, in the nature of a “conspiracy theory”. But didn’t the Society recently publish a book on the topic? It isn’t a conspiracy theory. The Society does have a position on the matter, and they enforce it.
And how exactly is it “kooky” to show that commentators like TGS flee from the field when they are asked to defend their position? All I did was reproduce exchanges that were in the nature of quoting either TGS or Ignatio accusing someone else of heresy or stupidity and then asking them a specific question either to explain their position, or to clarify it. They either ignored me or insulted me.
@AlphonsusJr: You made this comment on a recent post:
“Exactly. Diabolical scum like the feculent Blunderbuss fail to understand that cries of RAAAAAACISSS are becoming increasingly ineffective as more and more European people throw off (((their))) programming of suicidally xenophilic white ethnomasochism and hence subscribe to such Youtube channels as VertigoPolitix, American Renaissance, and Black Pigeon Speaks, and read such websites as Vdare, The Occidental Observer, and American Renaissance, all of which enjoy the extreme distinction of being labeled by the perfidious (((SPLC))) as RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCISSSS and thus as “hate groups.” Wonderful! RAAAAAAACCCCISSSSSSS??? I just don’t give a damn.”
Do you defend this comment as being on point for any of the topics Mr. V has talked about? Just wonderin’.
Basically defending myself and my posts with documentation , from your vile name calling and attacks.
This is what made you blow your gaskets and attack me as Randy Engel !
Resistance cult anyone complete with pervs?
Couple of short comments:
1) Get some rest and enjoy your family time. Long overdue. Just a reminder….They are your first duty….
“Duty always come first even before something holy” St Padre Pio
2) Shut down the COMBOX. Folks continue to abuse it. It is partisan, nasty, inane, and take’s too much of your time that could be used more fruitfully.
Great Blog. Quit commenting months ago. Like barking at the moon. Don’t come here for the self indulgent in the Combox but the articles and info. Rorate-Caeli shut theirs down and I dare say their readership has not declined.
Not a “regular” on your site, Mr. Verrechio, but as always thank you for what you do here and thanks also for the privilege to comment, albeit sporadically in my case.
Let’s hope people heed your suggestion and use the forum.
Another blogger in this ‘graveyard? More harvest for the Devil?
That is the last thing Mother Church needs.
There are two easy solutions: don’t read the comments or skip over the monomaniacal/1noteband commenters. Both of these solutions I switch back and forth on, depending on time.
Hahaha. See even when Vereccio says to stop it you cannot control your self and you need to spit venom and say slanderous things like “cult complete with pervs” and post links to weird websites. And you do it right on the blog where he says to stop it. He should “shutupthefilth” and stop you from spreading venom like a snake. Maybe closing the comments is a good idea after all.
Louie, Enjoy the week with your family.
$0.01) Some people will never stop; shut-it-down for your own mental health.
$0.01) The nastiness keeps too many away that are simply seeking guidance.
No one should be allowed to post more than 3x per blog and never more than 20 words for each comment. If you can’t get your point across in 60 words total, give up.
I fully stand behind those words, and similar words I’ve spoken. Indeed, they should be shouted from the rooftops with megaphones.
However, it’s true that they were often off-topic or tangential at best. Yes, for the good of all of us, Louie should entirely shut down both the comments AND the forum. We frequent commenters are all too lacking in self-control.
Mr. Verrecchio, I always find all of your articles on here well done and informative. I’m not sure how to categorize the value of your comment box but it is really helpful to see an unmoderated comment box. We are all in such a strange predicament, it is really my only avenue to see what other regular Catholics are thinking about this. I have many friends and family in Novus Ordo, in SSPX and in FSSP and maybe I’m too diplomatic but we don’t talk about any of the things going on but in a very superficial and delicate way. I absolutely think that there will be commenters that may not be honest or may be trolls or may be offensive or rude but we’re all adults. I think that your new Publication is very valuable as well, so in all honesty, I’d kick off any of your contributors who choose to be very belligerent and confrontational in here, which I’ve never seen until quite recently. I wish that you would keep it and if my comments would cause you to shut it all down, get rid of me. Please keep your comment box the way it is, there is no other comment box that is unmoderated and forums are weird. I was able to completely ignore a certain commenter, no problem, you just have to have minimal scanning skills. It’s not like your eyes will burn seeing a bad or off topic comment. Thank you for your consideration and God bless you and yours.
P.S. What I said about your contributors not running roughshod in here…I don’t think that should require your moderation. That should be a simple common sense matter of professional courtesy and ethical behavior.
Absolutely agree! I have read this blog and comments for years but no more. Has turned into The Sooty + Sweep show ( old children’s show in UK). Not edifying, does not lead to an increase in holiness… so please shut it down … keep writing great articles Louie but ditch this disgusting and scandalous combo box.
For heaven’s sake, St C- did you READ what Louie said? Please stop being selfish and showing off. You’re risking the Combox for the good posters.
With the best will in the world I have to say that verbal diarrhea is not something to be proud of.
Thank you AlphonsusJr. You said it so much better than I did! 😉
I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed!
About 4-5 months ago I decided that I was going to try and limit my comments here to maybe a small handful a month….and then, only when I really had an issue with something egregious. Sure enough, after a dew months, I allowed myself to get sucked back in and start commenting a lot more than I had wanted to. This post by Louie basically seals the deal for me. There are good posters here on both sides….but basically that is the problem…..we are on TWO different sides, and at the end of the day, this is just not a sede blog. Im a sede….this is not my blog.
I’ll never stop visiting this site but like I initially said months ago, I think its really time to keep my mouth shut here (at least 90% of the time).
Rich, I don’t think that you are a sede. I think that you are a Catholic. I realize the idea that seat is vacant has been extremely unpopular because Catholics thought this couldn’t happen and thus it would damage their faith. But Bergoglio is now doing SO much to damage to the faith that it really is avoidance to completely dismiss the idea. Now if Catholics want to continue to relegate the idea to pariah status than they will and it could just be the end but if there is a way to reclaim our Catholic Church than they better start looking at the problem from all angles instead of allowing the same people, like Michael Matt to lead all of the discussion. He’s got an opinion and a paper, good, he’s not the Pope.
You are correct…I am a Catholic. Sadly though we Catholics who take the Faith seriously (basically everyone who posts here) and are passionate about it seem to have fallen on one of two different sides, and that has led to some of the nonsense we’ve been seeing here (and when I say “nonsense”, I simply mean people letting their emotions get the best of them and saying some dumb things…we all do it sometimes). I wont leave this site…I love this site and have been here for quite a while now. I’ll only start keeping my posts to a minimum. I think that right now its for the best.
As far as MM is concerned, Im pretty sure that the vast majority here are wise to that whole situation.
Hey Louie enjoy your vacay and your family! 🙂 Thanks for the great blog and all the work you’ve put into it. You’ve informed and educated me, and your writing style is straightforward and really enjoyable. You’ve made complicated issues a bit easier to understand, and as far as I’m concerned, you’re bona fide.
Can I make a suggestion? Rename your great blog Cain and Able.
The forum just doesn’t work. I tried it and only half my posts actually posted.
Quisque aliquem modum scribo commentarii tres articuli: anathema sit.
Quisque aliquem modum scribo, super viginti verba in aliquem articulum: anathema sit.
(Scripsi viginti duo verba. Mea culpa. :))
We must love them both, those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject, for both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in finding it.
St Thomas Aquinas
“Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius:
Nil hoc verbo Veritatis verius.”
(St Thomas Aquinas).
– I believe that which the Son of God has said: Nothing truer than the word of Truth.
Good afternoon all. May I say a couple of things? I know I said that was it from me for this thread, but now most people have one hopes calms down, I’ll try to pour some oil on troubled waters.
1. First of all, it’s not nice to barge into someone else’s party and start criticising the wallpaper, so apologies to anyone I upset with any comment of mine. I know all of us are here on AKA because we are devastated by the rotten state of the Church and are trying to make sense of it. We ought to use that as the template for interaction here.
2. My objections to sedevacantism are real, I don’t want to discuss it at all. To be honest, it’s irrelevant: we are united in dislike for this Pope, the perverted clergy, the new Sacraments, all of it. I think sedevacantism is not only wrong, I am sure it’s dangerous – look at its effects on its proponents here, they are obsessed by it, as Cyprian has admitted. That is very unhealthy. It’s not piety, it’s simple obsession. Cyprian, I ignored your stream of questions in the same way that I would step aside from a stream of sh*t falling on me from a great height. It’s not just the volume and intensity of it, can you not see that it’s like being physically attacked? It’s certainly a psychological assault and one cannot deal with it.
3. What a lot of people who come here to read object to isn’t just the sedevacantist line being pushed with every comment, it’s the sheer rudeness of the Novus Ordo Watchism. “Mr” Bergoglio, “Mr” Ratzinger and so on. Reject the Church’s modern Sacrament of Orders if you will, but don’t push people’s faces in it, it’s jarring, annoying, and totally unnecessary, because it’s purely to identify yourself with a splinter ideology. I came back to the practice of the Faith via the mainstream Church in Moscow in 2005 after years of being effectively lapsed and I know for a fact that there are MANY religious and laity who put even Traditionalists to shame with their faith. Do not insult them by calling them “Mr.”. The sheer arrogance of it is breath-taking. Do you REALLY think that Christ has abandoned His Church? That story about Azerbaijan (which of course was written by me!) proves it and that’s why I posted it.
4. In short, my plea to the sedes here is to learn some humility and calm down. No sane person can deal with obsessive behaviour from others without becoming annoyed and even angry. These are fruits of division and do not come from God. Whether you like it or not, this is the effect of your sedevacantism. If you cannot keep your constant agitation under control, couldn’t you find a sedevacantist site where you can all support and reinforce each other’s views?
tgs–Louie has admitted to being a sede with regard to “Mr.” Bergoglio. Does your criticism include the owner of this blog? Isn’t that arrogance?
I happen to know LV’s views my2cents, from the man himself, but I will not be drawn by such a blatant provocation, for which you should be ashamed.
The combox cyberspace here serves as something of a safety valve not found elsewhere. The blog itself provides reason and order. The combox provides emotion and chaos. It wouldn’t work as a separate forum. Even though it’s out of control, the effect is often simultaneously painful and fun, and of value to many readers. Why not keep it going with a disclaimer at the top or a warning to read at your own risk?
I’m not ashamed at all. It was a natural response to your comment. I consider the matter closed. Have a great day!
TGS: Most of the sede posters here have not been obsessive and have been charitable in their posts to the non-sedes ….any objective reader can see that plainly.
I am totally fine with your disagreeing with my position on the Crisis. What I do have a problem with is your (and others’) name-calling as if you are the arbiter of who is a true Catholic in this time of confusion. When you stop acting like this, you will see someone like myself respond differently to you.
It is you who could learn some humility and learn to “calm down”.
my2cents: It doesn’t appear that Louie cares….he is Benedict Carter and Louie allows him to contribute to The Catholic Inquisitor. He also allows his anti-sedevacantist rants to continue here.
Then we must agree to not agree on that, or go our separate ways. I asked one friend who has not read AKA before to read the last couple of threads. She came back with one word – “nutters”. That’s what very many readers must think. if you cannot even see that the constant self-agitation over a period of many months, even years, is not obsessive, then there’s little hope. The name-calling was not started by me in point of fact – you lot shout “heretic” as a first rather than a last resort.
Well – go in peace.
If I wanted boring drab lockstep sychophantic comments, I would still be on 1P5 or Remnant. Passions run high here as they should. If someone can’t handle a few insults they have no business in a combox. The modern world is much crueler than any of us could dream of being with our fellow trads. This everyone “lets just get along” ploy is just a way to shut people up.
That said, we should be only discussing issues and not hurling ad homenim insults. If they do, turn the other cheek and press on with the issue. Time to grow tougher hides, the modern world has much worse in store for us trads.
Thank you 2Vermont–I look forward to reading his articles. I’m sure they will be “provocative”—in a good way, I hope.
Your friend’s comment does not mean anything. How many Catholics have been called “nutters” or similar things?
In any case, many posters here are looking for the truth and are not interested in mainstream respectability, which is certainly a good thing.
I’ve learned a lot on this blog including the comment section.
I also wish people would stay more on topic, but overall it’s a unique place where we can discuss ideas which many Catholics never even heard of or thought about.
Dear Sister in Christ, We do not care for the respect of men (especially worldly men given to ready disdain and personal insults, aping the ways of God’s enemies). God bless all of us souls striving and struggling to give glory to God and to avoid cooperation with sin in this apostate world.
With all due respect, you just proved the problem with the COMBOX. You have a supercilious, condescending, self-indulgent, squatters rights attitude of…”We “nutters” have taken over this blog combox. If you don’t like it, go to hell!” I assume you have your Big Boy Pants on so the bluntness does not offend you. Shakespeare said it best…to wit:
“I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed.”
@The Great Stalin: Physician, Heal Thyself: You said this above:
“My objections to sedevacantism are real, I don’t want to discuss it at all.”
On July 5 you said this to 2Vermont:
“A REFUSAL TO ANSWER A QUESTION GENERALLY DENOTES THAT YOU HAVEN’T GOT AN ANSWER. However, as you say you’re still working on it, fair enough. Let us have the answer when you’ve thought it through.
Louie gives space here to you when no-one else will – that’s kind of him. But it’s the tone, always the tone …. whether it’s NOW or HFM — the sedevacantist tone is the giveaway.
You have a responsibility to the many readers who don’t comment. I am very fearful for the damage done to them.”
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, eh TGS? You similarly “have a responsibility to the many readers who don’t comment” – and I’ll leave out your cautionary last sentence.
Continuing, in contrast to 2Vermont who admitted he was working on a response when he didn’t respond to a question, you don’t even want to discuss issues that you raise. One can only conclude that you KNOW, JUST KNOW, that Paulo-Bellarminism* (what you call sedevacantism) must be wrong.
Your attitude is like that of the two authors who bragged for months before the release of their book that their “magnum opus” would be the “ulimate refutation of the sedevacantist thesis”. One would think that on such a momentous topic the two authors would have kept an “open mind” and let themselves be led to the truth, wouldn’t one? But then they would have to admit that the CHURCH – speaking through a POPE and one of its GREAT DOCTORS – has already more than adequately handled the question. All we have to do is conform ourselves to Her teachings! After all, that’s one of the reasons why Our Lord gave us the Church!
Now, I hope Mr. V keeps the combox open, and have proposed rules that all commenters must follow. Are they acceptable to you, or do you have your own suggestions? I think as adults we can resolve this matter ourselves and save Mr. V the headache, don’t you?
*Paulo-Bellarminism is my name for the combination of teachings of Paul IV in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio and St. Robert Bellarmine’s teachings in De Romano Pontifice on papal loss of office. I’m a Paulo-Bellarminist on these issues, instead of, for example, a true-or-false-popist.
Readers can not and should not take TGS’ posts at face value. This was made evident in the combox of the last blog piece when he posted Benedict Carter’s comments word for word as his own and would not admit to Melanie and others that he was Benedict Carter. Instead, he wrote:
“I never knowingly write what I cannot hold to. TGS certainly does not write for Louie’s paper. BC on the other hand may.”
Only to finally admit he is BC after Lynda outed him. So the above post was deceitful at best.
So, when he says in this specific combox “My objections to sedevacantism are real, I don’t want to discuss it at all.” I don’t buy it. Unless Louie has told him to lay off the rabid anti-sedevacantism (and I certainly hope that he did), I highly doubt he will not discuss it all. I don’t think he can hold back his anti-sede obsession.
You simply don’t know when to let something alone, do you? The personal animosity is clear, and it’s only that the reader will take away. I have simply said what everybody thinks – that the obsessive behaviour seen in these comboxes doesn’t do your sede arguments any favours. You might try to learn from it.
I hold to every word of the sentence I wrote, because it’s the truth. TGS does not write for any journal, Catholic or otherwise. His creator, on the other hand, does.
Say what you want. Water. Ducks. Back.
Oh I don’t like you or your antics…and I don’t pretend that I do. But I have good reason not to like you. And, quite honestly, I don’t care if the readers don’t like that I don’t like you and your antics. Yet another example of your deceitfulness:
The post I quoted above:
“I never knowingly write what I cannot hold to. TGS certainly does not write for Louie’s paper. BC on the other hand MAY.”
vs the post you just wrote:
TGS does not write for any journal, Catholic or otherwise. His creator, on the other hand, DOES.
Despite the change in wording (which does change the meaning), it’s still not direct and honest. You could have come out and said, “Yes! I am BC.” Period. Instead you chose to be coy.
We are Catholic! That comes with a huge responsibility!
The Catholic Teaching is timeless and Does not Change!
We therefore need to be very careful about keeping Ourselves in check! No exceptions.
Only God Knows certain answers, We don’t.
Its only pride that is making arguments.
The Church is the Bride of Christ and She is indefectible,
But Her members are sinners.
We need to remain Humble, like Our Lady.
Even if we have an Evil Hierarchy, doing horrific things, We must be Glad and Rejoice because we have been Given Grace to see Clearly and still remain faithful To Christ and His Church.
To fight among ourselves is wrong.
Yes we can agree to disagree, and Call the truth out where necessary, but we must first save Our Own Soul and Then Others. We must look to the Great Saints and follow their example.
By Our Love we will show that we are Our Lord s Disciples.
We Dont have to Like Everyone, But we Do have to Love Them.
Lets all try together !
We are not here to win arguments, We are here to win Graces and Save Our Souls. Sometimes not fighting back can be more beneficial than hurling nasty words out.
If we are all truly sincere and here to Learn and grow in holiness, there we must think before we write and Pray to Holy Ghost and Our Guardian Angels before we type a single word.
We MUST try and Do God s will at all times, Not our Own.
God Bless you Louie and everyone else on this Blog.
Oh 2vermont, the man is real devious. He hates the idea of sede and thinks it’s even dangerous but look what he wrote under the last article, “He immediately bans any sedevacantist comment. His Moderator attack dogs do the necessary for him. They are Fr. RP and Brian Miles, a nasty individual with the sense of humour of a bayonet in the guts and a thoroughly objectionable addiction for American jargon.” He is talking about Steve Skojec and trying to get other commenters to pile on to him. I don’t know what his game is but the dishonesty tells me it’s not good. May not matter if the comments close all together but I will have no further interactions w/him.
The paranoid lunacy continues, along with the sheer nastiness. Well, you’ve been shown up for what you are, as any sane reader can tell. The lack of any charity is as bad as the Modernist revolutionaries. I hope you all understand that at some point.
Please shut down the combox. It is not helpful but scandalous and drives people away from the site. I have been a follower since the “eponymous” days and all articles are brilliant and enlightening. The problem is that everyone thinks they are brilliant and enlightening and litter the combox with dangerous opinions and uncharitable comments.
Please stop this ridiculous bickering. I, for one, do not want to see the com box shut down. I always look foward to reading them as I have learned so much about my faith. Let’s stop acting like children and be the adults that we are and continue to learn and grow in the faith. Louie, takes a lot of time and effort to bring us the news. So lets not mess it up, please!!
The case for shutting down comments–and the forum–gets stronger with each passing day. Excellent.
Agreed 100% my2cents. May I add for Louie’s benefit…….. On this site Louie, you offer factual and much needed information on what is happening in our Church today. You call a spade a shovel and you reject B.S as only you can.
That being said, you are firmly in Satan’s sights and he will use any and all means [including agitators who KNOW who they are!] to shut you and your true Catholic commenters up!
Your Cross is a heavy one but hopefully we “Cyrenians” can help you carry it by steadfastly IGNORING the trolls. Reaction from us is their oxygen – we can deprive them of that and they’ll go away, God bless you, BC.
Why can’t Louie use voluntary moderators who have the intelligence and confidence to shut the trolls down using the 3 strikes and you’re out method………. a bit like Whack-a-mole? Seriously!
PLEEEEEZE SHUT IT DOWN!!!!!
Vereccio: “Please be brief and to the point or I shut down combox.”
Combox: “SEDEVACANTIST NOT REALLY BECAUSE BENEDICT OR WHATEVER YOU’RE A HERETIC NO YOU ARE WE HATE MICHAEL MATT I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE EVIL NO I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE EVIL BIBLE QUOTES LATIN AND MORE LATIN LET US ARGUE WHETHER CATHOLIC CHURCH STILL EXISTS SSPX FSSP SPQR SPED CAN’T WE ALL GET ALONG HOW DARE YOU QUESTION JESUS THE END IS NEAR “RAAAAAAACISSS” BLAH BLAH BLAH 87 TIMES AND COUNTING!”
Alas, poor Combox never had a chance.
Some people love to hear themselves talk. Some people love to see their words in print. It makes them feel important even if what they are saying makes no sense and does not contribute to the topic at hand.
Here’s my suggestion, take it for what it’s worth (and I promise this will be my last post on this piece):
(1) Rather than removing the combox permanently or keeping it as is, take the combox down for a cooling off period for all;
(2) When it re-opens there should be set rules beyond keeping it brief and to the point (including no name calling such as “heretic” and “schismatic” and the need for well reasoned and supported arguments against other positions);
(3) Post the rules at the top where we can all see it, so we can keep ourselves and others in check
Hopefully, this will avoid a lot of the issues we have been running into lately.
From now on, when people ask me why I left tradism I think I’m going to point them to this combox.
I think Louie should shut down the combox. Even though there are a few good posters here, to quote Obi-Wan from Star Wars, speaking of the Mos Eisley spaceport, “You will never find a more wretched hive of [heretical and erroneous] scum and villainy.”
Louie, you will receive greater and stricter judgment for allowing this combox. not to speak of having this blog. For the blog alone, I would be shaking in my boots if I were you. “Be ye not many masters, my brethren, knowing that you receive the greater judgment.” James 3:1. Just my two cents.
Too funny as the Skilts pot screams the kettle is black and I must be Randy Engel because I “know too many priests and Bishops” and want others to safeguard their children from the likes of Hewko and Pfieffer’s RESISTANCE MC….who have incorporated the likes of Fr Tetherow ( convicted kiddie porn addict who admitted to the the vile habit and rec’d 2 years probation ) and defend Urrutigoity
( ejected from Scranton Diocese ) along with others.
Skilts you just appeared as Fleur vaporized albeit, with a direct agenda , in order to shut down this combox.
I have zero problem with anyone who has a differing opinion than mine with one exception…..priests posing as Trads or NO or independents with a history of sexually molesting children need to be outed and parents need to be on guard.
And that opine does NOT make me Mrs Engel who I definitely am not. It just indicates I am sane !
Its so obvious that the RR crowd wants this combox shut down. Makes you wonder who is behind the effort. Perhaps someone who has an issue with Mr. Verrechio.
Agree 100% here too. I’ve all but quit looking at all, unfortunately, at any of the Comment sections to your articles. I’m sorry you’ve had to remind everyone, yet again, to stay on point and to be frigging brief. We’ll see how that goes, eh?
Did you not read Louie’s request to stay on point and BE BRIEF?
Did you not just read Louie’s request, above, to stay on point and BE BRIEF?
Did you not just read Louie’s request, above, to stay on point and BE BRIEF?
Yep, that’s obviously necessary here too. I do miss the ability to comment on Rorate Caeli but I still go there just as often as I did before. Louie’s comment section has gotten ridiculous and I truly don’t see why he hasn’t shut it down yet.
What is your definition of the word “brief”?
Yes it does .
@Tom A: I’ve done a lot of thinking and reading about so-called “sedevacantism” and most lay people think it is a question of whether it is right or wrong. Either sedevacantism is right or it is wrong . But that is not how the Church operates in many instances. The Church has not decided every single possible issue already – as you are well aware, even saints or a pope held positions that were later rejected by the Church. So the initial question about sedevacantism isn’t whether it is right or wrong, but rather can it be held by Catholics at this time without incurring sin.
That is why I’ve asked a couple of the R&R partisans where sedevacantism has been condemned. That is also why I asked TGS whether the fifth opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine – which is the foundation for the sede position – can be held without sin at this time. As an aside, these are really ridiculous questions. I was reading about VI the other day and the author described that St. Robert’s position – the absolute injusticiability of the Pope – prevailed at VI. The pope cannot be tried and his decisions cannot be contested in legal proceedings.
Now in discussing the loss of papal office, St. Robert thought that a true Pope could not become a heretic, but the converse of that position could not be confirmed as absolutely impossible. That is why he investigated the subject of Papal loss of office for heresy. His position on the injusticiability of the Pope, though, would seem to leave the Church vulnerable to a heretical Pope because according to St. Robert the Pope is immune from all legal proceedings. But in investigating the question St. Robert came across teachings by Pope Innocent III and the fathers regarding Church membership and whether the Pope can be tried. Heretics, schismatics, and apostates cast themselves out of the Church. A Pope who becomes a heretic casts himself out of the Church, and since non-Catholics cannot rule in the Church, a manifestly heretical Pope loses his office essentially by implicitly renouncing it. It is only then – when he is no longer Pope – that he can be tried.
So the fifth opinion of St. Robert actually complements his other teaching on the absolute injusticiability of the Pope. The Church cannot be hijacked by a heretical Pope because although a Pope is immune from legal proceeding this is only true if he remains a member of the Church. If the Pope casts himself out of the Church through heresy he is no longer Pope and becomes subject to ecclesiastical proceedings. So in a way St. Robert’s teaching on the absolute injusticiability of the Pope and his fifth opinion on papal loss of office complement one another. That is why I said it is kind of a ridiculous question.
Now the R&R types know that they would be laughed out of the room if they tried to claim that the fifth opinion of St. Robert is heretical. Look at this citation from the CMRI on quotes supporting the sede position:
Renowned canonists followed St. Robert’s fifth opinion into the twentieth century, and Cardinal Burke recently made a public statement that implied the fifth opinion of St. Robert controls the question, i.e., papal loss of office for heresy.
In view of these quotes (including Cardinal Burke’s) calling a so-called “sede” who holds the fifth opinion of St. Robert a “heretic” is ridiculous. But the R&R partisans never cast their arguments in terms of whether a Catholic can hold the fifth opinion of St. Robert blamelessly. The partisan R&Rs don’t even mention St. Robert at all! Instead, they jump immediately to accusing ALL Catholics who hold the sede position of juridically declaring that the Pope has lost his office. There may be some crazy types out there who actually claim to be able to speak in the name of the Church and juridically declare the Pope a heretic and then elect a new Pope but most sedes do not perform such actions because they aren’t crazy and know they don’t have the power to perform such actions!
But the R&R types don’t stop at accusing sedes of usurping Church authority. They also say that it is impossible to hold the sede position because it leads to the denial of other Church teachings, e.g., on the visibility of the Church. Now when queried, most sedes say they definitely do not deny the teachings of the Church on these matters, its just that it is a mystery to them how those teachings are satisfied at the present time. In other words, the R&R types are arguing that the fifth opinion of St. Robert should be condemned because it leads to contradictions. But that is only according to them. The canonists cited by CMRI and Cardinal Burke apparently believe that there is nothing wrong with the fifth opinion of St. Robert and that it is the controlling opinion.
So where does that leave the current situation? It is really the R&R types who have usurped Church authority because they are condemning fellow Catholics for holding an opinion – e.g. the fifth opinion of St. Robert – that has not been condemned by the Church! And it is even worse, because the most militant R&R types actually falsely accuse sedes of holding other heretical positions when the sedes deny the accusations! Anyone who thinks I am misrepresenting the situation need only review the uncharitable rants of Catholic Thinker, Ignatio and the Great Stalin.
In view of this, where do people like Michael Matt think they have the authority to treat sedes as if they hold a heretical position that has been condemned by the Church? Who made him Pope to declare doctrines for the Church? Why have priests been expelled from a certain priestly fraternity for holding a position that has not been condemned by the Church? Who gave that fraternity the authority to declare doctrines for the Church?
Now, exactly WHERE such issues can be discussed on THIS blog has already been identified by the generous proprietor of this blog – Mr. V. I have tried to honor his wishes because I have started threads in the forum on these matters. But as I stated above, the partisan R&R types don’t follow this rule, and my suspicion is they will never follow this rule since all blogs like Mr. V’s that are critical of the human elements of the institutional Church can be used as a recruiting tool to channel people in a certain direction, if you know what I mean.
Even to recruit for an offshoot group that harbors very angry pederasts.
St. Cyprian, After VII most of my extended family and siblings don’t believe in God. My father is still Catholic w/a good very old NO Priest in a very elderly congregation. He’s very conservative politically but he won’t even look at any type of church news or controversy; won’t endanger his faith. Did you ever consider that possibly +Lefebvre set up SSPX as a type of overflow trap, to catch those Catholics that would not go with the flow of the New Order but also wouldn’t abandon the Lord. Those people caught in the overflow trap would have a very distinctly Catholic faith but glaringly minus true obedience to the Papacy and the Magisterium. It seems to me they basically cover all bases w/this. I know this would involve a conspiracy but I don’t discount that men can conspire and many players can even remain unaware.
Sweep, Over at Vox they are yelling no more $ to your Novus Ordo bc of the sodomy scandals and the attacks on our boys. Nobody gives to those phony Bihops’ appeals anyway. I say Catholics, rise up, no $$$$ to anyone until they get us a Pope. If SSPX needs to kiss and make up with the Orthodox, fix something w/the Filoque, kiss and make up w/solid sede Bishops… do what you need to do. Show us a Pope in Rome to lead Christ’s Church and then THEN you will be bountifully rewarded w/our tythes bc we follow the Precepts of the Catholic Church but we don’t support any other false worship.
Are you accusing me of this? What a liar you are. You are making more accusations and being anonymous because you will not say who you are. There are only two people who are so obsessed with sex perverts: Randy Engel and sex perverts. You say you are not Randy Engel so you must be another sex pervert. Why don’t you go away? Also I am not Fleur I keep saying this and you do not listen. Vereccio is going to close the combox and it is all because you cannot control yourself. Please stop talking. Maybe he should just sweep YOU out and then everyone can have peace.
Melanie, we are on the same page.
“Any number of times, I’ve posted here asking commenters to keep their comments on point and brief.”
Yet again, St C, you’ve shown both a total failure to control yourself and total disrespect for Louie. Thus you’ve yet again reinforced the case to close comments.
Just think of the state of mind required to expend such energy on thousands of words (see St C’s manic outbursts throughout this entire page) in an obscure combox that few, if any, will read. Sad. Such is today’s reigning diabolical disorientation.
“The more words, the more vanity, and what is man the better?”
Tom A., I know you’re a good person, but seriously, the conspiracy theory on shutting down the combox is way over stated. In the scheme of things (and nothing against Louie), this blog is not that important and it’s not very influential. As for my opinions, they are solely mine. No one is scheming with me. I’ll lay odds that everyone else is acting on their own initiative.
@Ever mindful don’t you ever have something original to say? I’ve been following this blog for over two years now and all your posts are copied and paste and generally pointless.
Louie, I love this blog and love reading the comments. Hopefully, people will abide by the rules so the combox can remain open.
Dear St. Cyprian: In what world would eleven (11) paragraphs be considered “brief”, as Louie as requested repeatedly. Let alone staying on point. Seriously dude, what’s wrong with you?
Dear Louie: Why don’t you just ban this guy who’s ruining the comment box for everyone?
Do you assist Mass at an SSPX Chapel?
One other thing “Lizfitz”, I have taken far more uncharitable uncatholic hypocritcal guff from partisans of the SSPX than from anyone else who has ever participated in this combox including Ganganelli and conciliar Church types!
By SSPX partisans I mean commenters by the name of Chris, Catholic Thinker, Ignatio, John Salza and The Great Stalin. Each of these commenters at various times have been condescending, insulting, misleading and hypocritical in their positions. Nonetheless, I do not advocate that any of these commenters be banned, because it is instructive for other Catholics to illustrate the CURRENT but not HISTORICAL inconsistencies in the positions of the SSPX on the problems facing the Church.
I agree with Archbishop Lefebvre on most of his diagnoses of the problems in the conciliar Church – but one may ask whether the same can be said of the current leadership of the SSPX who seek accomodation with far worse and more obvious heretics than ever confronted the great Archbishop!
One last thing Lizfitz, where is your outrage for Ignatio who went off topic on the ice cream social posting of August 3 and starting talking about sedevacantism? In your apparent rage at me, you forgot that I was the only one who told Ignatio to take his off-topic rants to the forum. Why didn’t you do the same thing, perhaps because you agree with him?