Changes - Amended!

[Iuvenalis]

Yeah, for a lot of people around here -- far too many people around here -- giving a Pope the benefit of the doubt and stating the belief that, though the traditional Mass is vastly superior, a Catholic should think long and hard before not going to a Novus Ordo Mass if that's all that's available is all it takes to call someone a "modernist." It's disgusting.

I'm starting to think that, with a few exceptions I can think of off the top of my head, I should ban sedevacantists from posting here. It's just not worth the hassle. It seems to almost always come through and get ugly.

Do you mean 'ban sedevacantists'? Or ban sedes that *talk about sedevacantism?

I ask because, in 5 years I think I only brought it up once that I'm a sedeprivationist (I doubt anyone on the forum even knew that until very, very recently) and it was in a cornfield discussion about sedevacantism-- I simply noted there was another position, sedeprivationism (mine).

Anyway, point being I actually continue to abide by the no discussion rule, and I will continue to not discuss it.

As someone who actually holds such an opinion, you might be surprised (or comforted) to hear that I *do not* think you should allow it on the forum. If a sede wants to participate, like myself for example, it shouldn't be a problem, but sede 'flavors' should go elsewhere to actually discuss their POV

In a nutshell, I agree with you, so long as i/we aren't banned for merely *being* a sede

[Someone1776]

Yeah, for a lot of people around here -- far too many people around here -- giving a Pope the benefit of the doubt and stating the belief that, though the traditional Mass is vastly superior, a Catholic should think long and hard before not going to a Novus Ordo Mass if that's all that's available is all it takes to call someone a "modernist." It's disgusting.

I'm starting to think that, with a few exceptions I can think of off the top of my head, I should ban sedevacantists from posting here. It's just not worth the hassle. It seems to almost always come through and get ugly.

Many of those here most opposed to attending the NO aren't sedes.

[tmw89]

Rosarium read into my post something which was not there.  I pointed out a common factor in posters who accumulated negative Fishies, but in my post did not judge whether or not those posters were correct in their defenses.  In other words:

What use is writing if all you will do is extrapolate from my words what you want to condemn?

[DrBombay]

I liked the fish factor.  I wore my bloody chum with honor.  Oh well, the traditional fish factor has been abrogated.  The modernists have won.  Tis a pity.  But at least we still have this:     And of course, the best of all remains:   

[Su]

Rosarium read into my post something which was not there.  I pointed out a common factor in posters who accumulated negative Fishies, but in my post did not judge whether or not those posters were correct in their defenses.  In other words:

What use is writing if all you will do is extrapolate from my words what you want to condemn?

I had no problems with your post. It was an observation. I just wanted more information about it (curiosity about the fish factor science). It was HR's responses which were the issue.

[tmw89]

Rosarium read into my post something which was not there.  I pointed out a common factor in posters who accumulated negative Fishies, but in my post did not judge whether or not those posters were correct in their defenses.  In other words:

What use is writing if all you will do is extrapolate from my words what you want to condemn?

I had no problems with your post. It was an observation. I just wanted more information about it (curiosity about the fish factor science). It was HR's responses which were the issue.

Ah.  Apologies for my misunderstanding.

[Vox Clamantis]

Rosarium read into my post something which was not there.  I pointed out a common factor in posters who accumulated negative Fishies, but in my post did not judge whether or not those posters were correct in their defenses.  In other words:

You seem to me to have called their giving respect and the benefit of the doubt to the Pope and believing that if there is no traditional Mass around, a Catholic should consider going to the Novus Ordo Mass to fulfill the Sunday Obligation "neo-cath ideology" (see post). You might disagree, and lots of good Catholics might disagree (with the latter, that is), but it's not "neo-Catholic" to believe that a valid Mass should be attended, even if it's the watered-down, banal N.O. Mass, if that's all there is. As to the former, non-sedevacantists damn well should give Benedict XVI the benefit of the doubt and show some respect. But too many around here don't.

[Vox Clamantis]

Yeah, for a lot of people around here -- far too many people around here -- giving a Pope the benefit of the doubt and stating the belief that, though the traditional Mass is vastly superior, a Catholic should think long and hard before not going to a Novus Ordo Mass if that's all that's available is all it takes to call someone a "modernist." It's disgusting.

I'm starting to think that, with a few exceptions I can think of off the top of my head, I should ban sedevacantists from posting here. It's just not worth the hassle. It seems to almost always come through and get ugly.

Do you mean 'ban sedevacantists'? Or ban sedes that *talk about sedevacantism?

I ask because, in 5 years I think I only brought it up once that I'm a sedeprivationist (I doubt anyone on the forum even knew that until very, very recently) and it was in a cornfield discussion about sedevacantism-- I simply noted there was another position, sedeprivationism (mine).

Anyway, point being I actually continue to abide by the no discussion rule, and I will continue to not discuss it.

As someone who actually holds such an opinion, you might be surprised (or comforted) to hear that I *do not* think you should allow it on the forum. If a sede wants to participate, like myself for example, it shouldn't be a problem, but sede 'flavors' should go elsewhere to actually discuss their POV

In a nutshell, I agree with you, so long as i/we aren't banned for merely *being* a sede

I mean ban sedes (with a few exceptions that I can think of off the top of my head). Even if sedevacantism isn't spoken of outright, the attitude toward the Holy Father comes out and leads to ugly fights. Catholics shouldn't have to urge other Catholics to give their Holy FATHER the benefit of the doubt, to not go looking for him to fail (practically clapping their hands in glee when they perceive that he does), etc. on a Catholic forum. It's getting old.

[DrBombay]

Bear in mind, however, that list included only the Top 51 posters.  The poster Old Salt is not in the Top 51, but by the time the Fishies were eliminated he had accrued the most bloody chum of any user.  If I recall correctly, his positive score was not even half that of his negative score.

User SPB had accrued a higher number of bloody chum than his total post count, and roughly twice as much as his positive score.

I think JayneK finished with +225/-836.

A pattern emerges:  all three have defended JP2, the NO, etc. 

I can't speak to Old Salt or JayneK, but SPB accumulated a significant amount of bloody chum because he started a thread complaining about his high bloody chum count.  This, in turn, inspired people to chum him just for laughs, or spite, or something.  At least, that's my theory.  Seems a rather immature response to a probably legit concern on SPB's part about why he had such high negatives, but some people on FE are.  Immature I mean.  So...yeah.   

[Jesse]

Catholics shouldn't have to urge other Catholics to give their Holy FATHER the benefit of the doubt, to not go looking for him to fail (practically clapping their hands in glee when they perceive that he does), etc. on a Catholic forum. It's getting old.

I agree whole-heartedly with this.