Questions for Non-Sedevacantists

[dellery]

No Sede I have ever known claims to have "power to pronounce" anything.  They are simply stating a private opinion and have never claimed anything else.

Private opinions are permissible, as far as I know.

Now we're getting to the crux of the matter, and something I have long suspected.

Sedevacantism frightens people.


Again, no-one is trying to force you to believe anything.

Now lets talk about what it is about the Sede position that frightens you, and others, so much.

Because this is what I think lies beneath so much anti-Sedism - fear.

When people say -"You have no right to say that the Conciliar 'popes' aren't Popes" - I suspect what they really mean is - "You have no right to scare me" .

Sedevacantists in a sense try to force their position when they say that it should be easy to recognize a heretic Pope, basically calling into question people's Catholic Sense for not agreeing with them.

If you'll notice above, I'm kind of a Sedevacantist at the moment, because of my difficulty in believing Francis is a real Pope, but as to why the Faithful would be frightened of the Sedevacantist position is simple, because it threatens the core of their religious beliefs. I do agree with you that many of the Faithful are afraid of the Sedevacantist position, and many might suspect it's true but don't assent to it out of fear.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

"negative infallibility" of both the ordinary magisterium and of Church discipline

And this is where we disagree.  You're applying a teaching charism to a governing function.

Sedevacantism frightens people.

"People who disagree with me are afraid."

Sedevacantism isn't scary.  The idea that the Holy See is occupied by an impostor whom I must reject would make my life easier.  No more worrying about what Francis or my local bishop is going to do the trads, because I'd just flip them the bird and find an independent chapel.  And if there aren't any independent chapels, no worries, I'll just read scripture and say a Rosary at home because none of the NO parishes nearby have validly ordained priests.  Seems like a much easier lifestyle with far fewer obligations, and I never have to worry about obedience to any creature.

No, sedevacantism isn't scary.  I'll tell you what is scary.

What is scary is the possibility of going to hell because I rejected a true Pope.  That is scary.

[Baylee]

No Sede I have ever known claims to have "power to pronounce" anything.  They are simply stating a private opinion and have never claimed anything else.

Private opinions are permissible, as far as I know.

Now we're getting to the crux of the matter, and something I have long suspected.

Sedevacantism frightens people.


Again, no-one is trying to force you to believe anything.

Now lets talk about what it is about the Sede position that frightens you, and others, so much.

Because this is what I think lies beneath so much anti-Sedism - fear.

When people say -"You have no right to say that the Conciliar 'popes' aren't Popes" - I suspect what they really mean is - "You have no right to scare me" .

Sedevacantists in a sense try to force their position when they say that it should be easy to recognize a heretic Pope, basically calling into question people's Catholic Sense for not agreeing with them.

If you'll notice above, I'm kind of a Sedevacantist at the moment, because of my difficulty in believing Francis is a real Pope, but as to why the Faithful would be frightened of the Sedevacantist position is simple, because it threatens the core of their religious beliefs. I do agree with you that many of the Faithful are afraid of the Sedevacantist position, and many might suspect it's true but don't assent to it out of fear.

Meanwhile, it is once again the non-sede in this thread (Melkite) that has called the sedes schismatic.  Have you taken him to task for that private opinion?

And, to be clear, in response to another one of your posts:  there is not ONE person that I know (IRL or otherwise) who decided to take the sede position that took it LIGHTLY.

[Baylee]

"negative infallibility" of both the ordinary magisterium and of Church discipline

And this is where we disagree.  You're applying a teaching charism to a governing function.

Sedevacantism frightens people.

"People who disagree with me are afraid."

Sedevacantism isn't scary.  The idea that the Holy See is occupied by an impostor whom I must reject would make my life easier.  No more worrying about what Francis or my local bishop is going to do the trads, because I'd just flip them the bird and find an independent chapel.  And if there aren't any independent chapels, no worries, I'll just read scripture and say a Rosary at home because none of the NO parishes nearby have validly ordained priests.  Seems like a much easier lifestyle with far fewer obligations, and I never have to worry about obedience to any creature.

No, sedevacantism isn't scary.  I'll tell you what is scary.

What is scary is the possibility of going to hell because I rejected a true Pope.  That is scary.

And I find it scary to be in communion with a false, non-pope who teaches a false, non-Catholic, anti-Catholic religion.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

And I find it scary to be in communion with a false, non-pope who teaches a false, non-Catholic, anti-Catholic religion.

1. Begging the question.

You haven't demonstrated that he teaches a "false, non-Catholic, anti-Catholic religion".  And you won't be able to.  You might be able to assemble what you think is convincing evidence, but if it were convincing, sedevacantism wouldn't be a niche of a niche of a niche.

2. "Scary"?

You and I have different definitions of the word.  It might be "trying" or "frustrating" to live in a world with an antipope, but "scary" is not the word I would choose.  I might have serious concern for the souls of those who have been misled to believe that everyone is saved or that rainbow crimes are equivalent to real marriage, but I can't say I would be experiencing fear.

[dellery]

Meanwhile, it is once again the non-sede in this thread (Melkite) that has called the sedes schismatic.  Have you taken him to task for that private opinion?

And, to be clear, in response to another one of your posts:  there is not ONE person that I know (IRL or otherwise) who decided to take the sede position that took it LIGHTLY.

Melkite hasn't objected to anything I've typed, I'm merely responding to AC, not taking anybody to task.

Since you brought it up, however, it's understandable why the Faithful would consider people who have taken the Sedevacantist position to be somewhat schismatic when you all constantly refer to yourselves as Sedevacantists, or Sedes, thereby qualifying yourselves as something other than just Catholic. There's no denominations within Catholicism, either you are or you are not. It's one thing to doubt a scandalous, and probably heretical, Pope's authenticity, but that's a lot different than proclaiming oneself a Sedevacantist —-elevating one's doubts to a unique religious identity.

[Baylee]

And I find it scary to be in communion with a false, non-pope who teaches a false, non-Catholic, anti-Catholic religion.

1. Begging the question.

You haven't demonstrated that he teaches a "false, non-Catholic, anti-Catholic religion".  And you won't be able to.  You might be able to assemble what you think is convincing evidence, but if it were convincing, sedevacantism wouldn't be a niche of a niche of a niche.

2. "Scary"?

You and I have different definitions of the word.  It might be "trying" or "frustrating" to live in a world with an antipope, but "scary" is not the word I would choose.  I might have serious concern for the souls of those who have been misled to believe that everyone is saved or that rainbow crimes are equivalent to real marriage, but I can't say I would be experiencing fear.

If he's not then you should be in true communion with him.  But you're not.  You only say you are. And therefore should still be afraid.

[awkward customer]

No Sede I have ever known claims to have "power to pronounce" anything.  They are simply stating a private opinion and have never claimed anything else.

Private opinions are permissible, as far as I know.

Now we're getting to the crux of the matter, and something I have long suspected.

Sedevacantism frightens people.


Again, no-one is trying to force you to believe anything.

Now lets talk about what it is about the Sede position that frightens you, and others, so much.

Because this is what I think lies beneath so much anti-Sedism - fear.

When people say -"You have no right to say that the Conciliar 'popes' aren't Popes" - I suspect what they really mean is - "You have no right to scare me" .

Sedevacantists in a sense try to force their position when they say that it should be easy to recognize a heretic Pope, basically calling into question people's Catholic Sense for not agreeing with them.

If you'll notice above, I'm kind of a Sedevacantist at the moment, because of my difficulty in believing Francis is a real Pope, but as to why the Faithful would be frightened of the Sedevacantist position is simple, because it threatens the core of their religious beliefs. I do agree with you that many of the Faithful are afraid of the Sedevacantist position, and many might suspect it's true but don't assent to it out of fear.

I take my hat off to you for acknowledging the role of fear in this debate.

How would you suggest exploring this fear and looking for a way forward?

PS.  Re your first point, perhaps it's not peoples' Catholic Sense that Sedes are calling into question but their  refusal, because of their fear, to go where their good Catholic Sense urges them.

[Baylee]

Meanwhile, it is once again the non-sede in this thread (Melkite) that has called the sedes schismatic.  Have you taken him to task for that private opinion?

And, to be clear, in response to another one of your posts:  there is not ONE person that I know (IRL or otherwise) who decided to take the sede position that took it LIGHTLY.

Melkite hasn't objected to anything I've typed, I'm merely responding to AC, not taking anybody to task.

Since you brought it up, however, it's understandable why the Faithful would consider people who have taken the Sedevacantist position to be somewhat schismatic when you all constantly refer to yourselves as Sedevacantists, or Sedes, thereby qualifying yourselves as something other than just Catholic. There's no denominations within Catholicism, either you are or you are not. It's one thing to doubt a scandalous, and probably heretical, Pope's authenticity, but that's a lot different than proclaiming oneself a Sedevacantist —-elevating one's doubts to a unique religious identity.

You were the first one to make the point that there is no one to make the pronouncement re: sedevacante.  But you failed to make the same point re: Melkite's pronouncement/anathema.

As for us calling ourselves "sede" instead of "Catholic" that's typically done in situations like this where there is a debate going on about the Crisis.  We most certainly call ourselves Catholic outside of these situations.  Even if others don't think we are. 😉

[dellery]

I take my hat off to you for acknowledging the role of fear in this debate.

How would you suggest exploring this fear and looking for a way forward?

PS.  Re your first point, perhaps it's not peoples' Catholic Sense that Sedes are calling into question but their  refusal, because of their fear, to go where their good Catholic Sense urges them.

This is the contradiction I'm talking about. The fear of the Faithful in rejecting Francis, for example, is also a product of good Catholic sense. Since being in communion with the Pope is necessary to be a Catholic, hesitancy in breaking this communion, interiorly, and especially exteriorly, for most people is prudence.

[dellery]

You were the first one to make the point that there is no one to make the pronouncement re: sedevacante.  But you failed to make the same point re: Melkite's pronouncement/anathema.

As for us calling ourselves "sede" instead of "Catholic" that's typically done in situations like this where there is a debate going on about the Crisis.  We most certainly call ourselves Catholic outside of these situations.  Even if others don't think we are. 😉

Yeah I did, and even wrote that the Sedevacantist position seems to be the most consistent, and is surely understandable why the Faithful would doubt the recent Pope's legitimacy.

[Baylee]

You were the first one to make the point that there is no one to make the pronouncement re: sedevacante.  But you failed to make the same point re: Melkite's pronouncement/anathema.

As for us calling ourselves "sede" instead of "Catholic" that's typically done in situations like this where there is a debate going on about the Crisis.  We most certainly call ourselves Catholic outside of these situations.  Even if others don't think we are. 😉

Yeah I did, and even wrote that the Sedevacantist position seems to be the most consistent, and is surely understandable why the Faithful would doubt the recent Pope's legitimacy.

See bolded.  But I do agree with AC that I commend you on bringing up the fear factor.  I just tire of others pointing fingers at sedes for making "pronouncements" and never pointing out that the non-sedes can do the same thing when pronouncing sedes as non-Catholics.

[Melkite]

No Sede I have ever known claims to have "power to pronounce" anything.  They are simply stating a private opinion and have never claimed anything else.

Private opinions are permissible, as far as I know.

It's not the private opinion that's the problem.  It's attending chapels that are de jure outside of the Church.  SSPV, CMRI, independent chapels (though I know they are not always sedevacantist) are simply outside the visible structure of the Church.

Now we're getting to the crux of the matter, and something I have long suspected.

Sedevacantism frightens people.

This is actually a really interesting point.  I never thought of it like this, but I think you're right, at least for me.  Sedevacantism frightens me because it makes me consider that perhaps the Church is defectible.  And if the Church is defectible, then it either is not the Church Christ founded (which means I'm in the wrong body) or Christ simply wasn't God and no church has any particular objective importance.  If sedevacantism is true, it essentially throws me into the same existential crisis Christ's disciples experienced between the crucifixion and their awareness of the resurrection.  Up is down, left is right, we no longer have any point of reference to center our spiritual observation of the world.  It's like that epistemological premise (I'm paraphrasing): We can't know for certain that what our senses are telling us is true, but we have to assume that they are at least largely accurate.  If we can't have even reasonable certainty of that, then it's game over.  It is utterly impossible to know whether what we perceive is real or not.

[Melkite]

And I find it scary to be in communion with a false, non-pope who teaches a false, non-Catholic, anti-Catholic religion.

https://imgflip.com/i/7xpdfy

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

If he's not then you should be in true communion with him.  But you're not.  You only say you are. And therefore should still be afraid.

Papolatry and reading hearts.

You shall know them by their fruits.