Clarification re: Sedevacantism and the Forum

[TerrorDæmonum]

Maybe the reform that is needed of The Sacred Sciences (renaming it to make sense, and enforcement of rules, or some sort of enforced participation standard) could include the addition of similar board for specific Council and Decrees discussions.

The whole idea that questions whether a council, decree, or Pope has contradicting another is an open invitation to the Sedevacantist debate, otherwise, the idea that there can be any real contradiction on doctrine could be dismissed entirely.

[Michael Wilson]

T.D.
The board is "SSPX" friendly site; and the position of the SSPX is that there are serious errors in the Council documents; so the calling into question of said documents is in keeping with the rules, as long as one doesn't drag in the sed argument.
The SSPX does not hold to the sed position and in fact is hostile to it.

[TerrorDæmonum]

T.D.
The SSPX does not hold to the sed position and in fact is hostile to it.

The facts indicate that the progression of discussion is well established. Also, the SSPX position is hostile to the Sedevacantist position because it is clearly differentiating itself: it is a very small jump from perceiving issues with the Council documents to seeing heresy in them and imputing that to the prelates. This is clearly evident within the SSPX so the distinction is very plain and clear for this reason.

Discussions on this matter here are very much topics of interest to those who hold, promote, or are considering the Sedevacantist Thesis.

But even so, SSPX position discussions are very much a "Church politics" discussion, and that muddies the Philosophical and Sacred Sciences I think, unless the purpose of the board is to have endless disputes about politics in the Church, it probably doesn't belong there.

Given that the Council does not define doctrines, whatever discussions people have about them will be about interpretations and politics: regardless of what people claim, there is nothing new.

[Justin Martyr]

Maybe the reform that is needed of The Sacred Sciences (renaming it to make sense, and enforcement of rules, or some sort of enforced participation standard) could include the addition of similar board for specific Council and Decrees discussions.

The whole idea that questions whether a council, decree, or Pope has contradicting another is an open invitation to the Sedevacantist debate, otherwise, the idea that there can be any real contradiction on doctrine could be dismissed entirely.

To be fair, there is a difference between a thread on "Here are two different magisterial texts which appear to contradict themselves. Do they contradict? How do we reconcile them?" and a thread on "Here's a BLATANT contradiction. CHECKMATE Vatican II sect. Go ahead and do your mental gymnastics NEO-CATHOLICS."

The former is a legitimate discussion to understand what distinctions to make. The latter is anti-catholic posting.

[TerrorDæmonum]

To be fair, there is a difference between a thread on "Here are two different magisterial texts which appear to contradict themselves. Do they contradict?

That is true.

In practice though, on traditional Catholic forums, the tendency to reduce everything to a Vatican II discussion is strong. I specifically avoid Church politics to avoid this issue because it is old and boring, sometimes dangerous, and rehashed so many times it is no longer identifiable.

Maybe a new board for such discussions on comparing specific texts like that would make sense with a similar design to the board in question. The Non-Catholic Discussion Subforum could be repurposed for it. 

[Michael Wilson]

T.D.

Given that the Council does not define doctrines, whatever discussions people have about them will be about interpretations and politics: regardless of what people claim, there is nothing new.

That the "Council does not define doctrines" i.e. Teach them with full authority, is the position of the SSPX. They also hold that one then can legitimately reject Council documents without calling into question the authority of the office holders or the Church itself. Since the Church authorities have repeatedly called on the SSPX to accept the documents, for the SSPX discussion of their orthodoxy is not about politics, but vital to legitimize their apostolate and very existence.
J.M.

Here's a BLATANT contradiction. CHECKMATE Vatican II sect. Go ahead and do your mental gymnastics NEO-CATHOLICS."
The former is a legitimate discussion to understand what distinctions to make. The latter is anti-catholic posting.

The same goes for this. The SSPX basis its existence and resistance to the Council on the non-reconciliability (new word?) of the Conciliar and pre-Conciliar teaching.  So from their point of view, trying to reconcile the two does amount to said gymnastics.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Further clarification is needed: does the Sedevacantist Thesis include all infinite possible "the apparent Pope is not actually the Pope" claims, discussions, and debates including those views which hold some other person to actually be the Pope?

[Justin Martyr]

Further clarification is needed: does the Sedevacantist Thesis include all infinite possible "the apparent Pope is not actually the Pope" claims, discussions, and debates including those views which hold some other person to actually be the Pope?

I would say yes. Previously followers of Pope Michael have been banned in the past for promoting their position. His Majesty can give a definitive answer.

[Bonaventure]

Deporting sedes to a ghetto won't solve this forum's problems.

I think Käse should make you a sweetheart deal: moderator of sede sub.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/36edd707-a64c-401e-a523-ba62d412bf40