The Sedevacantist Thesis

[TerrorDæmonum]

Are sinners suddenly "not Catholic"?

Are those who use railing speech repeatedly online not Catholic then?

It is all scandalous, but one is clearly within the domain of our perception, rather than pretending we can examine the cases of civil marriage that we do not have any knowledge of.

Are most marriages invalid due to defect? It would make sense in a culture where the idea of marriage is extremely warped and perverted and does not resemble a natural marriage.

So, the Church is not wrong for recognizing that great disorder exists.

Whether any given case was invalid or not or properly or improperly judged is really a matter for an informed examiner who has the facts and sufficient theological training.

Sedevacantist and separatist clergy have lapsed in their judgements on marriage as well, and resulted in grave situations because of it.

This is the problem with Sedevacantists: they have great attention to liturgical texts and rubrics, but they don't really seem to have anything else. They can criticize everybody else who has far more responsibility.

The Vatican is a sovereign state, the Pope and the Vatican have various international diplomatic roles, the bishops under the Pope have everything from entire dioceses to run, and all the responsibilities that brings including dealing with civil authorities, other bishops, all the parishes and priests under them, exorcisms, the media, etc, and Sedevacantist bishops get to pick and choose what they do.

Is that fair? People who reject authority over them and go their own away always have easier tasks, because they can pick and choose what they want to do.

The Pope, whether he likes it or not, is a king of a state and an international diplomat. He is not just talking to Catholics. He is dealing with entire national governments.

Maybe his job is a lot harder than finding a little pocket to hide out and focus on the liturgical observation. The same goes for the bishops.

And they fail even at what they choose to do. Going on reality TV, making a spectacle, and then failing to have any success in actually doing what the Church is supposed to do in casting out demons.

So, it is easy to sit on the side and criticize public figures and accuse them of everything, but does one stand up to scrutiny? Priests ordained under the Roman Rite, using the Novus Ordo, have verified successes in exorcisms when they comply with the Church's rules on it, even when using the new rites, but many still use the old. Sacraments under the Roman Rite as used by Rome now have been subject to extraordinary events, and the Church under the Pope and Bishops have been able to examine and fix errors (see: improper baptisms, ordinations, etc) as well as examine marriages in detail. That is their job and all signs point to it not being deficient.

Do individuals fail? Yes. Are there many examines of sinners in the Church? Most definitely.

But when was this not the case?

[mikemac]

That's why the sub forum was created.

Yes. The distinction is no longer made it seems.

However, it has caused me to realize a few things, such as the arguments haven't changed and are still flimsy, their claims are getting more extreme and highly implausible, and their behaviours have become unbecoming.

They attack my "trad" credentials if I don't join them, and they are denying the sacraments of the Church and the authority that was given to the Church by God, not just in doubting a Pope, but doubting the Popes, bishops, Roman Rite, and somehow, non-Roman Rites which are in communion with the Pope.

Requests for evidence of their position in the form of successful exorcisms and other the like have not yielded any evidence for them representing the Church. Instead, disparaging the sacraments of others is more common and that is bordering on sacrilegious. It is one thing to criticize the development and final form of the Novus Ordo, but that is not what they are doing. I am not going to deny what I know is the Blessed Sacrament nor do I want to be associated with those who do.

Instead, I get claims, accusations, speculations, and strawman, with my own position being misrepresented, and then attacked

I have long stated I'm sympathetic to the Sedevacantist position, but I am becoming less so. It seems more like desperate sectarianism.

Of course, had they conducted themselves better and respected the forum structure, I might not be more critical, but alas, I guess defying authority and structure is to be expected.

Well yeah, why bother keeping questions like this in The Sedevacantist Thesis sub forum when sedevacantists themselves don't keep their sedevacantist crap in The Sedevacantist Thesis sub forum.  That is one of the main reasons why I think we need daily moderation in this forum, to keep the dogmatic sedevacantism, mostly from Gog, in the proper sub forum.

[GiftOfGod]

That's why the sub forum was created.

Yes. The distinction is no longer made it seems.

However, it has caused me to realize a few things, such as the arguments haven't changed and are still flimsy, their claims are getting more extreme and highly implausible, and their behaviours have become unbecoming.

They attack my "trad" credentials if I don't join them, and they are denying the sacraments of the Church and the authority that was given to the Church by God, not just in doubting a Pope, but doubting the Popes, bishops, Roman Rite, and somehow, non-Roman Rites which are in communion with the Pope.

Requests for evidence of their position in the form of successful exorcisms and other the like have not yielded any evidence for them representing the Church. Instead, disparaging the sacraments of others is more common and that is bordering on sacrilegious. It is one thing to criticize the development and final form of the Novus Ordo, but that is not what they are doing. I am not going to deny what I know is the Blessed Sacrament nor do I want to be associated with those who do.

Instead, I get claims, accusations, speculations, and strawman, with my own position being misrepresented, and then attacked

I have long stated I'm sympathetic to the Sedevacantist position, but I am becoming less so. It seems more like desperate sectarianism.

Of course, had they conducted themselves better and respected the forum structure, I might not be more critical, but alas, I guess defying authority and structure is to be expected.

Well yeah, why bother keeping questions like this in The Sedevacantist Thesis sub forum when sedevacantists themselves don't keep their sedevacantist crap in The Sedevacantist Thesis sub forum.  That is one of the main reasons why I think we need daily moderation in this forum, to keep the dogmatic sedevacantism, mostly from Gog, in the proper sub forum.

So if you are going to come down on dogmatic sedeplenism in this forum then you should also be coming down on dogmatic sedevacantism.  But this forum would need to be moderated daily, because as of late dogmatic sedevacantism has been rampant around here.  If not then it would not be a stretch to say that you are operating a sedevacantist forum.

Give us some examples of rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

mikemac, you have yet to provide any examples of rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

[mikemac]

That's why the sub forum was created.

Yes. The distinction is no longer made it seems.

However, it has caused me to realize a few things, such as the arguments haven't changed and are still flimsy, their claims are getting more extreme and highly implausible, and their behaviours have become unbecoming.

They attack my "trad" credentials if I don't join them, and they are denying the sacraments of the Church and the authority that was given to the Church by God, not just in doubting a Pope, but doubting the Popes, bishops, Roman Rite, and somehow, non-Roman Rites which are in communion with the Pope.

Requests for evidence of their position in the form of successful exorcisms and other the like have not yielded any evidence for them representing the Church. Instead, disparaging the sacraments of others is more common and that is bordering on sacrilegious. It is one thing to criticize the development and final form of the Novus Ordo, but that is not what they are doing. I am not going to deny what I know is the Blessed Sacrament nor do I want to be associated with those who do.

Instead, I get claims, accusations, speculations, and strawman, with my own position being misrepresented, and then attacked

I have long stated I'm sympathetic to the Sedevacantist position, but I am becoming less so. It seems more like desperate sectarianism.

Of course, had they conducted themselves better and respected the forum structure, I might not be more critical, but alas, I guess defying authority and structure is to be expected.

Well yeah, why bother keeping questions like this in The Sedevacantist Thesis sub forum when sedevacantists themselves don't keep their sedevacantist crap in The Sedevacantist Thesis sub forum.  That is one of the main reasons why I think we need daily moderation in this forum, to keep the dogmatic sedevacantism, mostly from Gog, in the proper sub forum.

So if you are going to come down on dogmatic sedeplenism in this forum then you should also be coming down on dogmatic sedevacantism.  But this forum would need to be moderated daily, because as of late dogmatic sedevacantism has been rampant around here.  If not then it would not be a stretch to say that you are operating a sedevacantist forum.

Give us some examples of rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

mikemac, you have yet to provide any examples of rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

You were shown three different times in the other thread.  If Kaesekopf wants to see examples of dogmatic sedevacantism all he needs to do is look back through your posting history. 
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=2057
Or for that matter just read your ever changing signature file.

[TerrorDæmonum]

mikemac, you have yet to provide any examples of rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

I don't know how long you've used the forum (I could find out, but it doesn't matter), but the SV questions and stance used to not be on threads that weren't in the appropriate board.

People (apparently) have been banned for doing far less than you on threads. You just need to look at your open rejection and accusation of sin across the boards of bishops, priests, and laity who celebrate or attend the Novus Ordo.

The fact you repeatedly ask for "examples" of your own behaviour indicates a lack of self-awareness or lack of care.

You are not the only one though. The SV issue has spread across the entire forum and it is heavily distracting as it overwhelms the discussion into that topic.

[Michael Wilson]

Re. "Invalidism = Sedism"; most of the early Trads were "Invalidists" & not Seds. One example was Walter Matt who founded the Remnant and who advertised Mr. Pat Omlor's book, "Questioning the Validity"; also my family was Invalidist-non-Sed for a long time. So just because all Seds are Invalidists, doesn't mean all Invalidists are Seds. So bringing up the "Invalidist" argument on a thread is not the same as introducing the Sed position.

[TerrorDæmonum]

So just because all Seds are Invalidists, doesn't mean all Invalidists are Seds. So bringing up the "Invalidist" argument on a thread is not the same as introducing the Sed position.

This thread is about Sedevacantist posting outside the board dedicated to it. The people involved are Sedevacantists. If they bring it up, it is part of their position, and part of their argument, and it should be in the correct board for it.

It is also imprudent most of the time outside of specific discussions on it.

Such things are very discouraging to others who do not share the position, and it is a good way to get Sedevacantists on this board perceived as, in practice, anti-Catholic posters if they go around casting doubt on everything every other Catholic accepts and which the Holy Catholic Church promotes.

It seems Sedevacantists got very used to their views and don't realize how radical it is and how unusual it is in light of the history of the Church. It is not a casual position to take and it is not suitable for everybody to be bombarded with unless you intend to convince them the Church isn't true. That is the other result of Sedevacantist arguments: unless a person is specifically examining that question, attacking the Pope, the Novus Ordo, the sacraments, etc, is attacking the Church as a whole. One might as well be a Protestant attacking the Church in practice in those situations.

People cannot even give away a good book for free without being confronted with it.

If you want people to be sympathetic to your position, you may want to have people who share your views represent them well. Their behaviour on the forum can and will impact perception of Sedevacantists as a whole.

People will refrain from posting if they think they are going to get a holy a thing attacked, and do we want that?

Can Sedevacantists not be careful in their approach to not basically attack everything that is Catholic? They are such a minority, with a very extreme view, and a lot of uncertainty, that going around and confronting other Catholics about it will be very hostile.

In fact, it is.

[TerrorDæmonum]

If you want to see how things used to be, consider this early thread. Keep in mind that some of the posters on that thread were close forum friends and we may be referencing discussions that occurred elsewhere or on other forums at the time. I don't remember the exact context or state of the forum at the time.

One of my statements in that post is a little strange to me, and I think it is a result of recent interactions somewhere with some of those people or something. I don't remember.

[GiftOfGod]

Well yeah, why bother keeping questions like this in The Sedevacantist Thesis sub forum when sedevacantists themselves don't keep their sedevacantist crap in The Sedevacantist Thesis sub forum.  That is one of the main reasons why I think we need daily moderation in this forum, to keep the dogmatic sedevacantism, mostly from Gog, in the proper sub forum.

So if you are going to come down on dogmatic sedeplenism in this forum then you should also be coming down on dogmatic sedevacantism.  But this forum would need to be moderated daily, because as of late dogmatic sedevacantism has been rampant around here.  If not then it would not be a stretch to say that you are operating a sedevacantist forum.

Give us some examples of rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

mikemac, you have yet to provide any examples of rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

You were shown three different times in the other thread.  If Kaesekopf wants to see examples of dogmatic sedevacantism all he needs to do is look back through your posting history. 
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=2057
Or for that matter just read your ever changing signature file.

Bullsh*t. If I were posting dogmatic SVism, I'd be warned or banned. So far Kaesekopf has warned you for dogmatic sedeplenism but not me for dogmatic sedevacantism. And my signatures have consisted of the following: ABL quotes, a quote from FSSP/ICKSP leaders, a quote from Louie Verrecchio on how FSSP and ICKSP deserve what they get from Francis, a quote from SD user King Wenceslas about me, and a quote from theologian Fr. Hesse on the freedom to not believe in Fatima. Not one of those is rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

[mikemac]

Well yeah, why bother keeping questions like this in The Sedevacantist Thesis sub forum when sedevacantists themselves don't keep their sedevacantist crap in The Sedevacantist Thesis sub forum.  That is one of the main reasons why I think we need daily moderation in this forum, to keep the dogmatic sedevacantism, mostly from Gog, in the proper sub forum.

So if you are going to come down on dogmatic sedeplenism in this forum then you should also be coming down on dogmatic sedevacantism.  But this forum would need to be moderated daily, because as of late dogmatic sedevacantism has been rampant around here.  If not then it would not be a stretch to say that you are operating a sedevacantist forum.

Give us some examples of rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

mikemac, you have yet to provide any examples of rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

You were shown three different times in the other thread.  If Kaesekopf wants to see examples of dogmatic sedevacantism all he needs to do is look back through your posting history. 
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=2057
Or for that matter just read your ever changing signature file.

Bullsh*t. If I were posting dogmatic SVism, I'd be warned or banned. So far Kaesekopf has warned you for dogmatic sedeplenism but not me for dogmatic sedevacantism. And my signatures have consisted of the following: ABL quotes, a quote from FSSP/ICKSP leaders, a quote from Louie Verrecchio on how FSSP and ICKSP deserve what they get from Francis, and a quote from SD user King Wenceslas about me. Not one of those is rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

Kaesekopf has not addressed the "and vice versa" part yet.

[GiftOfGod]

Kaesekopf has not addressed the "and vice versa" part yet.

He obviously doesn't feel the need to. But he felt the need to address your behavior on the issue.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Kaesekopf has not addressed the "and vice versa" part yet.

He obviously doesn't feel the need to. But he felt the need to address your behavior on the issue.

He moves in mysterious ways.

Really. I wouldn't interpret his activity like that. One would go crazy. I know I have.

[Baylee]

You were shown three different times in the other thread.  If Kaesekopf wants to see examples of dogmatic sedevacantism all he needs to do is look back through your posting history. 
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=2057
Or for that matter just read your ever changing signature file.

I am new here, but this is what the forum rules state regarding "dogmatic sedevacantism":

A Definition of Dogmatic Sedevacantism and the Forum's Stance Toward It:

Dogmatic sedevacantism may be said to be a general attitude toward the current crisis in the Church which regards the state of the Seat of Peter to be practically de fide.  This means that one who believes that the Seat is currently occupied has lost their Catholicity (or, at the very least, experiences a dramatically reduced Catholicity) due to grave error which is likely at least materially heretical.

Dogmatic sedevacantism is forbidden on this forum and is subject to moderation.  While Suscipe Domine is a sedeplenist forum, sedevacantists are welcome to post here in all sub-fora.  However, it is also the stance of the forum that the question of the loss of a valid papacy in the occasion of heresy is an open one among Catholics with no binding, universal Magisterial teaching on the subject.  Therefore, Catholics are free to hold varying opinions on the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar papacies.  Any posts which claim or even imply a superiority in the faithfulness or orthodoxy of Catholics who hold a varying opinion on the state of the papacy will be subject to discipline.

I think it is up to you to provide at least one specific example of GiftofGod's posts that do any of the bolded.  While lurking I have not seen one, but I can now see the thread you posted questioning whether sedevacantism was Catholic.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I am new here, but this is what the forum rules state regarding "dogmatic sedevacantism":

Long term members know what the rules state and how they were enforced and interpreted in the past.

I think it is up to you to provide at least one specific example of GiftofGod's posts that do any of the bolded.  While lurking I have not seen one, but I can now see the thread you posted questioning whether sedevacantism was Catholic.

You might find that some might find it suspicious that a new account posts only on my threads. It is very odd.

Every post of yours is a response on my threads about this topic so far.

You might want to look around the forum and see what else there is.

This thread is about keeping those topics in the appropriate board for the reasons given.

As for specific examples, it is evident in many posts. People who don't see that the position that those who accept the Pope are heretics, non-Catholic, or at the very least committing a grave sin are not reading the posts.

Here is an example.

What else could that mean that the Sedevacantists who have a minimal prescence and are reduced to singular individuals and small groups are being compared to a "a sinking heretical ship (the Conciliar Church)"?

What is the risk being taken?

This is advancing "dogmatic sedevacantism" because it is a Dedekind cut between those who accept the Pope and the Church he is the visible head of, and those who do not. What else could it mean?

Also, denying that the bishops and people working in the Church are not Catholic because they are making decisions on specific cases because one perceives the number of those cases to exceed some arbitrary set point of acceptability.

Accusing people who are not Sedevacantist of being "the enemy".

And accusing people who attend the NO at all of committing a sin at best and encouraging a person to create disharmony in the family and disobey lawful authority.

And this example of a reaction to a post merely containing priests that are not up to personal standards.

And here is a post on a listing for a book being given away.

This is the issue, specifically of this person, but the thread is about this topic being outside the appropriate board in general.

I don't know why you have a specific interest in supporting this person or posting on my posts, but there it is. Demanding "evidence" and then ignoring it is transparent and while people might respond to it, the more it is done, the less people will answer.

[Baylee]

It's kinda hard not to post to a thread you've posted. But I will be ignoring your posts right out of the gate, Insanis.