The Sedevacantist Thesis

[TerrorDæmonum]

Paeninteo,
please calm down; I wasn't mocking you or insulting you or implying that you were a "sectarian" when I said your views line up more with Conservative Catholics. I laughed at your response, saying my views lined up more with "Orthodox or Protestant", because it was a total "non-sequitur" and an attempt to return a non-intended insult with another.

I am calm. You really seem to think you know me better than you do. I saw your comments around the forum.

Your classifications of "Conservative Catholics" and "trads" and other groups are sectarian. I am a member of the Church. I do exclusively attend a single rite, but I am aware that the Church is more than that.

I was not insulting you. I was pointing out that the arguments that are brought to me, when you present your evidence and claims, is indistinguishable from anybody else attacking the Catholic Church. That is the truth.

I was telling the truth: that is what I think. That is why continuing to go after the argument that the Popes are not the Popes and all the rest is not what I think is good. I am not interested in debating anything, especially when I have to deal with people who cannot do anything but point out what the Church is not.

Yes, I know one can endlessly criticize the Pope, declare things in error, etc, but I accepted the argument already and asked where the Church was then.

Nobody could point me to it. It was very abstract. It should have been simple: the fact nobody could indicates that the words of the Church on the nature of the Church in this world do not apply. That means that nobody would stand up for the visible Church and instead hand-waved it away.

No Catholic who has knowledge of the state of the world and Church as a whole should be able to do that. Any member of the Church who has a broad knowledge of the matter should not be able to point one to it.

If you cannot show me where the Church is as taught infallibly by the Church, then you should be more careful about spreading your opinions: they may be wrong, and you can tear down beliefs, but you cannot build them up.

It is one thing to have intellectual and emotional discussions about this issue, but the spiritual reality is: the Church is not a human organization and there is no spiritual indication that you are right. The longer this goes on, the more it becomes clear what the truth is.

Until demons laugh at the Church's attempt to exorcise them using the authority of the Church, and instead fear the intervention of those you claim are right, I will stick with the Church as visible on this earth.

Until signs and wonders are associated with Sedevacantists, I don't really pay them any mind while miracles and little signs and wonders for our weak minds are present still with the Church as visible on this earth.

I am not going to shy away from lawful authority and the sacraments given to us by God and stay home and wait for some intervention.

I will follow the angels, whose intellects are far more than any humans. I am not going to trust a fallen nature to do what is contrary to their words.

[Michael Wilson]

Joseph,
what comments around the forum about you?

I was not insulting you. I was pointing out that the arguments that are brought to me, when you present your evidence and claims, is indistinguishable from anybody else attacking the Catholic Church. That is the truth. [/QUOTE[
No they are not.
"Nobody could point out the Church"; I did indeed; you don't accept the argument. That is fine.
As to the rest, fine. Nobody is twisting your arm.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Joseph,
what comments around the forum about you?

It is not important. I know you have made commentary on me and my forum use, but I am not going to go into that. It is a distraction. But I do read and the fact I don't respond is not an indication of anything but restraint and choice.

I did indeed; you don't accept the argument. That is fine. As to the rest, fine. Nobody is twisting your arm.

No, I didn't accept the argument, because I had already agreed to it, and was asking where the Church is. I was not looking for more apophatic answers. I was looking for the Holy Catholic Church, and the answers were in defiance of Church doctrine,

Your views, as expressed here:

The Catholic Church cannot totally disappear, but its visibility can be significantly reduced, as it has been since Vatican II.

are not anything I think we should debate. You have to point to the Church and it has to resemble the Church as taught by the Church, otherwise, there is nothing left to discuss. The Church has to exist visibly as taught before we can discuss points of doctrine after that.

I don't want debates about who the Pope is not or evidence why things are defective. I want to know where the Church as described by the Church infallibly is first. Without that, there is no discussion on further doctrinal issues.

I was not shown, so the arguments you have are invalid, because the Church exists and is true, or doesn't exist and it is false. If it cannot exist as it teaches it must, then it is false.

And I don't believe that: I believe in the whole Creed as taught through the ages.

You cannot argue against that without arguing against the whole Creed. I am not going to slice parts out and make them invisible for an indefinite period of time.

[Michael Wilson]

Joseph,
I deny that I have made comments about you and your forum use either on any thread here or in any P.M; if anyone here has received a P.M. From me about Joseph, please post it.
I won't address the rest of you post. I think the best for both of us to shake hands, and let bygones be bygones. O.K.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I won't address the rest of you post. I think the best for both of us to shake hands, and let bygones be bygones. O.K.

That is for the best. Since the beginning of forum use, I had always counted on people talking about common Catholic points, rather than any fringe experiences or opinions that not all share. That is all I wanted actually and what this thread originally was about.

Due to the virus though, and something about geography, the handshake must be virtue.

SYN

[Elizabeth.2]

Now, if someone is being rude about their views, that's another story. 

The poster in question makes Sedvacantists look like obsessed, imbalanced, spiteful people who believe they are far superior to other sincere Catholics.

Once in awhile, who doesn't love a good fight online.   But the constant depressing lack of charity and little jabs, turn people off and do
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but prove the stereotype of bitter zeal.

[TerrorDæmonum]

The poster in question makes Sedvacantists look like obsessed, imbalanced, spiteful people who believe they are far superior to other sincere Catholics.

I wish the Sedevacantists who don't engage in the behaviour which inspired this thread were the ones to try to restore order.

I know many don't post a lot about it or even at all, but they are being represented by these people and since they share the same fundamental conclusions, it really represents that.

The Sedevacantist stance is a very extreme position and it is difficult to present it without making one seem a certain way at the best of times, and having it represented by those who don't care about perceptions or decorum (at the very least) does not help the perception of the stance at all.

[Elizabeth.2]

I talked to Fr. Joseph Collins R.I.P. in some long conversations.   He was extremely humble, told me his side of the story about his life after being one of the Oyster Bay Nine, (and how they locked him out of the Rectory and a whole bunch of very serious stuff which was confirmed fact.)  He gave me good Counsel on a number of things which tormented me, helped me enormously on some personal issues.  He was disgusted by their sense of superiority, and the pride which attracted a number of laypeople (myself included.)


The Nine were not persecuted by ABL for being SV.  A bunch of them had problems which cause men to be expelled from seminary.
Substance abuse , etc. etc.   Instead of insulting non-SVs,  Dogmatic Sedes should be watchdogs of their own clergy and the people who teach in their schools.

[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.

Well, well....this appears to be one of my first posts. Reading this thread is like revisiting what we've recently gone through here in this sub-forum....lol.

[Bonaventure]

You've won, Baylee.

Mike is dead.



1:25

[Baylee]

You've won, Baylee.

Mike is dead.



1:25

Not sure what you mean by that.  I knew Mikemac died.  I wasn't looking for an answer from him.  Just pointing out how that thread reminded me of what we recently went through. 

[dellery]

I didn't know Mikemac died!!

[Bonaventure]

I didn't know Mikemac died!!

You've been gone for a long time.