Good statement for Sedevacantism

[Bataar]

So this posted and wanted to restate here:

Even if the Sedevacantist position does not have all the answers clearly, we at least do not have contradiction. Mystery can exist in the Catholic church. Contradiction cannot.

[AlNg]

Even if the Sedevacantist position does not have all the answers clearly, we at least do not have contradiction.

There are contradictory positions in SV:
1. Some say it is OK to attend a "una cum Pope Francis" Mass; others say no.
2. Some say SV can choose their own pope; others say no.
3. Some say the current ordination rite is valid; others say no. Some say the Eucharist of the New Mass is valid; others say no.
4. Some SV accept BOD; others no.
Etc.

[Maximilian]

Even if the Sedevacantist position does not have all the answers clearly, we at least do not have contradiction. Mystery can exist in the Catholic church. Contradiction cannot.

The fundamental contradiction of Sedevacantism is that the entire concept is a logical fallacy. It's a well-known fallacy called "The No True Scotsman" fallacy.

The fallacy consists in changing the category definitions after you have been proven wrong, in order to evade admitting that you were wrong.

The classic version goes:

Statement: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "My uncle Angus from Edinburgh puts sugar on his porridge."
Fallacy Answer: "No TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

So we just eliminate the members of the set which disprove our theory, and we claim that they are not TRUE members.

Statement: "No Merino sheep are black."
Reply: "I have a herd of Merino sheep, and I'm looking at a black one right now."
Fallacy Answer: "No TRUE Merino sheep are black."

This logical fallacy has been known for some time, but it's intriguing how well it fits the situation with our modern popes.

Statement: "No pope can teach error in Faith and morals."
Reply: "This pope, this pope and this pope have all taught errors in Faith and morals."
Fallacy Answer: "No TRUE pope can teach error in Faith and morals."

[Michael Wilson]

Max,

Statement: "No pope can teach error in Faith and morals."

This is "de fide"; so either you accept this Catholic doctrine or you cease to be Catholic.

Reply: "This pope, this pope and this pope have all taught errors in Faith and morals."

Two alternatives: 1. The Catholic Church taught error and is therefore not the true Church or
2.This man isn't the Pope.

Fallacy Answer: "No TRUE pope can teach error in Faith and morals."

Which is not "Fallacy" but Catholic doctrine if one is a Catholic.
The "true Scotsman" comparison fails, because there are true Scotsmen who do not put sugar in their porridge".
The same for the Merino sheep comparison.
A better comparison would be: "A true Catholic believes and confesses the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity";
But Jim does not believe or confess the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity;
True conclusion: Jim is not a Catholic.   

[Maximilian]

One problem with logical fallacies is that they are easy to believe. As the Queen says in "Alice in Wonderland," "I often believe six impossible things before breakfast."

And it's virtually impossible to convince people otherwise once they have got a logical fallacy stuck in their head. No amount of reason will dislodge it.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Statement: "No pope can teach error in Faith and morals."

It's a bit more nuanced than that.  There are roughly three positions on this issue:

1. "It is not possible for a Pope to teach the slightest error or give scandal by his action or inaction, and if you think it happened, you are definitely wrong."  (Hyperuberultramontanist)

2. "It is not possible for a Pope to teach any error, binding or otherwise."  (Sedevacantist)

3. "It is not possible for a Pope to bind the conscience of the faithful in serious error."  (FSSP/ICKSP/diocesan Trads/SSPX/some conservatives)

[Michael Wilson]

One problem with logical fallacies is that they are easy to believe. As the Queen says in "Alice in Wonderland," "I often believe six impossible things before breakfast."

And it's virtually impossible to convince people otherwise once they have got a logical fallacy stuck in their head. No amount of reason will dislodge it.

It is indeed Max, It is indeed.

[Michael Wilson]

Statement: "No pope can teach error in Faith and morals."

It's a bit more nuanced than that.  There are roughly three positions on this issue:

1. "It is not possible for a Pope to teach the slightest error or give scandal by his action or inaction, and if you think it happened, you are definitely wrong."  (Hyperuberultramontanist)

2. "It is not possible for a Pope to teach any error, binding or otherwise."  (Sedevacantist)

3. "It is not possible for a Pope to bind the conscience of the faithful in serious error."  (FSSP/ICKSP/diocesan Trads/SSPX/some conservatives)

Chairman Joe,
I agree that the issue is more nuanced; but close enough for our thread discussion purpose.
#1. Does describe a Catholic "conservative" who while claiming the above, at the same time denies the explicit meaning of said declarations. This position was possible immediately after VII; but is becoming so strained now, especially with Francis, that it has a dwindling number of adherents.
#2, The Sed position is that the Pope in his solemn definitions, can oblige the faithful to an assent of faith to his definitions and there cannot be any errors in these definitions against either faith or morals. While in his ordinary teachings, the Pope can oblige to a interior and "religious" assent of the faithful; and therefore cannot teach errors that would be either harmful to faith or morals, even if there were errors present in the declarations.
#3. FSSP/SSPX; The Pope can oblige the faithful to an assent to his solemn definitions (same as the sedes); but otherwise his ordinary magisterium can contain serious errors against faith and morals; and therefore the faithful are not obliged to gives these magisterial declarations any assent, except in the degree that they conform to traditional doctrine.
   

[awkward customer]

....... This logical fallacy has been known for some time, but it's intriguing how well it fits the situation with our modern popes.

Statement: "No pope can teach error in Faith and morals."
Reply: "This pope, this pope and this pope have all taught errors in Faith and morals."
Fallacy Answer: "No TRUE pope can teach error in Faith and morals."

But which Popes?  Name them and the errors in Faith and morals that they taught.

Or your argument falls down flat.

[awkward customer]

Even if the Sedevacantist position does not have all the answers clearly, we at least do not have contradiction.

There are contradictory positions in SV:
1. Some say it is OK to attend a "una cum Pope Francis" Mass; others say no.
2. Some say SV can choose their own pope; others say no.
3. Some say the current ordination rite is valid; others say no. Some say the Eucharist of the New Mass is valid; others say no.
4. Some SV accept BOD; others no.
Etc.

These are differences of opinion, not contradictions.

[Baylee]

Even if the Sedevacantist position does not have all the answers clearly, we at least do not have contradiction. Mystery can exist in the Catholic church. Contradiction cannot.

The fundamental contradiction of Sedevacantism is that the entire concept is a logical fallacy. It's a well-known fallacy called "The No True Scotsman" fallacy.

The fallacy consists in changing the category definitions after you have been proven wrong, in order to evade admitting that you were wrong.

The classic version goes:

Statement: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "My uncle Angus from Edinburgh puts sugar on his porridge."
Fallacy Answer: "No TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

So we just eliminate the members of the set which disprove our theory, and we claim that they are not TRUE members.

Statement: "No Merino sheep are black."
Reply: "I have a herd of Merino sheep, and I'm looking at a black one right now."
Fallacy Answer: "No TRUE Merino sheep are black."

This logical fallacy has been known for some time, but it's intriguing how well it fits the situation with our modern popes.

Statement: "No pope can teach error in Faith and morals."
Reply: "This pope, this pope and this pope have all taught errors in Faith and morals."
Fallacy Answer: "No TRUE pope can teach error in Faith and morals."

Unfortunately for you, this is yet another situation where one cannot apply secular analogies to the Crisis in the Church.  This post reminds me of the "He's a Bad Daddy, but he's still our Daddy" analogy that too many R&R adherents use to explain away/ignore a heretic pope.

[Baylee]

One problem with logical fallacies is that they are easy to believe. As the Queen says in "Alice in Wonderland," "I often believe six impossible things before breakfast."

And it's virtually impossible to convince people otherwise once they have got a logical fallacy stuck in their head. No amount of reason will dislodge it.

It is indeed Max, It is indeed.

 

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Statement: "No pope can teach error in Faith and morals."

It's a bit more nuanced than that.  There are roughly three positions on this issue:

1. "It is not possible for a Pope to teach the slightest error or give scandal by his action or inaction, and if you think it happened, you are definitely wrong."  (Hyperuberultramontanist)

2. "It is not possible for a Pope to teach any error, binding or otherwise."  (Sedevacantist)

3. "It is not possible for a Pope to bind the conscience of the faithful in serious error."  (FSSP/ICKSP/diocesan Trads/SSPX/some conservatives)

Chairman Joe,
I agree that the issue is more nuanced; but close enough for our thread discussion purpose.
#1. Does describe a Catholic "conservative" who while claiming the above, at the same time denies the explicit meaning of said declarations. This position was possible immediately after VII; but is becoming so strained now, especially with Francis, that it has a dwindling number of adherents.
#2, The Sed position is that the Pope in his solemn definitions, can oblige the faithful to an assent of faith to his definitions and there cannot be any errors in these definitions against either faith or morals. While in his ordinary teachings, the Pope can oblige to a interior and "religious" assent of the faithful; and therefore cannot teach errors that would be either harmful to faith or morals, even if there were errors present in the declarations.
#3. FSSP/SSPX; The Pope can oblige the faithful to an assent to his solemn definitions (same as the sedes); but otherwise his ordinary magisterium can contain serious errors against faith and morals; and therefore the faithful are not obliged to gives these magisterial declarations any assent, except in the degree that they conform to traditional doctrine.
   

It seems that sedes genuinely believe that the ordinary magisterial authority is exercised virtually every time the pope speaks or writes.  Is this actually the case?  I do not want to strawman.

[Michael Wilson]

The Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope is exercised by the Pope every time he teaches; whether in a discourse, as in Pius XII's "address to the Association of Italian Midwives", where he outlined the Church's position on the liceity of the recourse to the infertile periods of the woman, to prevent conception in certain determined circumstances. In the Popes' Encyclicals; and even in Radio Messages where Church doctrine or morals is treated; such was the case with Pius XII's Radio  Messages during W.W.II. Where communications had become impeded because of the War.
So a Pope speaking as a private individual or private theologian, such as the books written By Popes John Paul II and Benedict; were not considered part of the ordinary magisterium; neither would be routine messages of greeting etc. 

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

I don't think that moves us closer to a resolution, because we're still having to analyze every proposition and discern what category it belongs to:

• Teachings related to Catholic faith or morals issued from the office of Pope
• Teachings related to Catholic faith or morals issued by a private individual
• Teachings not related to Catholic faith or morals issued from the office of Pope
• Teachings not related to Catholic faith or morals issued by a private individual
• Disciplinary decrees issued from the office of Pope
• Disciplinary decrees issued by a private individual

... and so on.

We can say that certain propositions definitely belong to the first category, i.e. statements that take the form, "we declare, pronounce, and define", or something that has an anathema attached to it.  But for everything else, discernment is still required.