The Sedevacantist Thesis

[TerrorDæmonum]

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.

Thank you.

But remember, you are the one who chose which threads to reply to. You didn't reply to the more interesting topics. It was your choice. Don't blame others for your choices. You could have posted on any other thread of mine or person.

I have not made many threads. You replied to my introduction as well. That was your choice.

[Elizabeth.2]

Are sinners suddenly "not Catholic"?

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





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






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.

We can forget that the Church teaches that there are Good Catholics and Bad Catholics.  Bp. McKenna's problems were what caused. me to abandon the SV Theory.  I have seen firsthand the marriage problems resulting from this chaos.  May Christ have mercy on us in these crazy times.

[GiftOfGod]

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?

If you consider that to be "dogmatic sedevacantism", then every SSPX priest on Earth is a "dogmatic sedevacantist".

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.

People who don't believe in the indissolubility of marriage are not Catholic. That has nothing to do with SVism.

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

Again, that has little to do with sedevacantism and by your logic, the SSPX is sedevacantist. My statement of "The enemy is the Conciliar Church" is taken from the below statement made by the forum admin and quoted by a forum moderator. Bold and enlarged font is mine.

Preamble

Suscipe Domine is a traditional Catholic forum. The "party line," as it were, is that of the Society of St. Pius X.

The forum's policy towards sedevacantists is taken from Abp. Lefebvre, "I do not say that the pope is not the pope... But I do not say that you cannot say the pope is not the pope."

At the end of the day, we are united in our common belief, be we sedeplenist or sedevacantist, SSPX or FSSP. Keep this in mind while you post. Our enemies are NOT each other, but rather, the Conciliar Church.

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.

My statement that attending the New Mass was originally told to me, in person, by an SSPX priest. I think most SSPX priests would agree that it is. Are they sedevacantists?

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

Are you surprised that a trad would react negatively to being told that priests being held out as traditional are in fact not traditional (as described by the forum admin)? This is a trad forum.

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

That must really bother you, Peneto, as you're obsessing on it. Don't think I didn't notice your feminine argumentation tactic of arguing and then claiming that the arguing is derailing the thread in an attempt to get the last word in. And how many times have you brought up that post outside of that thread? Again: obsessed.


Now I can see why mikemac refuses to provide examples of "rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation": there are none. Even Peneto can't find any.

[mikemac]

It's a matter of opinion.  Some people are in denial of their own errors.  Did you forget you said this yesterday?

Duh, ABL was a flip flopper on some issues. Acceptance of SVism was one of them. I've pointed that out many times on SD and the Lefebvrists attack me for "nitpicking", "trolling", or being "disrespectful". They think ABL should be canonized, so they ignore his faults.
And it you were to put up a poll, I would say that half of SSPX Mass attendees would vote that the SSPX of late is not the same as when ABL was alive. SSPX even had a mini-schism over that (the "Resistance").

Well yeah, I have just realized that the SSPX stance on sedevacantism is about as ambiguous as the Second Vatican Council.  Yet in their writings the SSPX still claim that sedevacantism is schismatic, outside the Church.

[GiftOfGod]

It's a matter of opinion.  Some people are in denial of their own errors.  Did you forget you said this yesterday?

Duh, ABL was a flip flopper on some issues. Acceptance of SVism was one of them. I've pointed that out many times on SD and the Lefebvrists attack me for "nitpicking", "trolling", or being "disrespectful". They think ABL should be canonized, so they ignore his faults.
And it you were to put up a poll, I would say that half of SSPX Mass attendees would vote that the SSPX of late is not the same as when ABL was alive. SSPX even had a mini-schism over that (the "Resistance").

Well yeah, I have just realized that the SSPX stance on sedevacantism is about as ambiguous as the Second Vatican Council.  Yet in their writings the SSPX still claim that sedevacantism is schismatic, outside the Church.

How is that relevant?

[mikemac]

It's a matter of opinion.  Some people are in denial of their own errors.  Did you forget you said this yesterday?

Duh, ABL was a flip flopper on some issues. Acceptance of SVism was one of them. I've pointed that out many times on SD and the Lefebvrists attack me for "nitpicking", "trolling", or being "disrespectful". They think ABL should be canonized, so they ignore his faults.
And it you were to put up a poll, I would say that half of SSPX Mass attendees would vote that the SSPX of late is not the same as when ABL was alive. SSPX even had a mini-schism over that (the "Resistance").

Well yeah, I have just realized that the SSPX stance on sedevacantism is about as ambiguous as the Second Vatican Council.  Yet in their writings the SSPX still claim that sedevacantism is schismatic, outside the Church.

How is that relevant?

Well you are asking some questions today about the SSPX in your post above that you basically answered yesterday.

[GiftOfGod]

It's a matter of opinion.  Some people are in denial of their own errors.  Did you forget you said this yesterday?

Duh, ABL was a flip flopper on some issues. Acceptance of SVism was one of them. I've pointed that out many times on SD and the Lefebvrists attack me for "nitpicking", "trolling", or being "disrespectful". They think ABL should be canonized, so they ignore his faults.
And it you were to put up a poll, I would say that half of SSPX Mass attendees would vote that the SSPX of late is not the same as when ABL was alive. SSPX even had a mini-schism over that (the "Resistance").

Well yeah, I have just realized that the SSPX stance on sedevacantism is about as ambiguous as the Second Vatican Council.  Yet in their writings the SSPX still claim that sedevacantism is schismatic, outside the Church.

How is that relevant?

Well you are asking some questions today about the SSPX in your post above that you basically answered yesterday.

Nope.

[mikemac]

Yep.   

[TerrorDæmonum]

Sedevacantism:
1) Suscipe Domine recognizes Pope Francis as the Supreme Pontiff. Sedevacantists are invited and welcome to join and post. The forum's policy towards sedevacantists is taken from Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, "I do not say that the pope is not the pope... But I do not say that you cannot say the pope is not the pope."
2) It is necessary for every poster, including sedevacantists, to use a pope's regnal name when posting. Even anti-popes are afforded this respect. Immature name-calling will not be tolerated.

Regardless of enforcement, those who violate these rules have shown they are not respectful of the rules and I think I am going to treat those who violate these rules as taking a stand against the Church.

If they refer to the Popes or past Popes birth names or introduce their opinions out of the proper context, they are functionally Protestants in nature attacking the Church.

What would be the different in practice? If every subject becomes a contention about Sedevacantism or Protestantism, then the discussion are all equally hampered and it makes it not worth posting at all on those topics.

Even citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church in a single comparison between it and the Roman Catechism received an outburst from a Sedevacantist.

Constantly responding to these things is a waste of time.

So, those who present the Sedevacantist system on every thread will be more or less dismissed as would any such troll. Constantly defending the Church against those claims, including denial of the Pope's their regal names, is contentious and does not get anywhere. They set themselves apart by doing it and that is how I guess it must be.

[Michael Wilson]

Joseph,
you didn't really address the Letter from the CDF. That Claims that the Catholic Church is united to the Orthodox sects.

Among the non-Catholic Churches and Christian communities, there are indeed to be found many elements of the Church of Christ, which allow us, amid joy and hope, to acknowledge the existence of a certain communion, albeit imperfect(73).
This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).

Since the Church has always taught that there is only one true Church and other groups that claim to be Churches are not; and are separated from her. How is it that the CDF following Vatican II, teaches that other false religions are united to the Catholic Church?

[GiftOfGod]

If [sedevacantists] refer to the Popes or past Popes birth names or introduce their opinions out of the proper context, they are functionally Protestants in nature attacking the Church.

What is the "proper context"? I wouldn't want Peneto to think I'm a Protestant.

[TerrorDæmonum]

If [sedevacantists] refer to the Popes or past Popes birth names or introduce their opinions out of the proper context, they are functionally Protestants in nature attacking the Church.

What is the "proper context"? I wouldn't want Paeniteo to think I'm a Protestant.

Not Protestant. Functionally indistinguishable in the context of the forum. I don't accuse Sedevacantists of Protestantism, only resembling them in practice if they engage in certain behaviours in certain contexts. But anybody can do that.

In the proper forum for discussion the individual opinion that the Pope is not the Pope and the conjecture that the Pope, Bishops, Priests, and others in communion with them have invalid orders or sacraments.

Treating those things as if they were obviously true and not up to debate on the general forum is putting a clear line between the Catholics who don't have those views and those who do.

It means that Catholics who discuss devotions, prayers, rites, or news which involve the people accused of being heretics or invalid cannot do so without having to deal with opinions.

It means that those who want to discuss the Roman Catholic Church cannot do so without having to fundamentally defend it against those who suspect there might be a situation which is unproven.

It means that raising the intellectual possibility of something supersedes what faith tells us.

There is no Divine validation of the Sedevacantist view. There are no miracles. There are no exorcisms. There are no resemblances to the Church as we are taught. They cannot therefore claim to represent the Holy Catholic Church alone.

If they do that, they are doing what so many have done before.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Joseph,
you didn't really address the Letter from the CDF.

A thread about The Sedevacantist Thesis board not being used as it should is not really the best place for discussing that.

And since attempts to do so have resulted in personal mockery around the forum, I am really not interested in "addressing" it. The attempt to do so has resulted in a dead end, not discussion.

I really don't want to debate Sedevacantist views as it gets contentious too easily. That is what this thread is about: keeping those discussions away from everything else so they don't turn everything into a SV discussion (or debate or whatever).

[GiftOfGod]

And since attempts to do so have resulted in personal mockery around the forum, I am really not interested in "addressing" it.

What are you talking about?

[Miriam_M]

I'm sympathetic to those Catholics who have various opinions while attempting to adhere to the doctrines of the Church fully.

It is good to have a board for the debates and discussions on this matter, but it seems to have a lot blurrier lines.

I would suggest that the following topics be relegated to it:

• Posts by Sedevacantist activisits about the Pope, Bishops, or non-SV clergy and groups which are obviously posted with support of their opinions on the Sedevacantist Thesis.
• Posts around the forum which express doubt of the validity of sacraments that Catholics in general do not doubt.

It is very annoying, at the very least, to have people going around doubting sacraments and Sedevacantists who reject the Pope, seemingly fixated on everything to do with Pope Francis and the Vatican. It is not just "news" if it is being posted by people who hold the view it isn't valid. It is an argument to support their view.

Also, I'd suggest that Sedevacantists opinions not be the primary way they give advice to people who are not yet in the Church and looking for basics.

A potential convert being told that all the masses and priests around them are sacrilegious or wrong is not helpful. It is saying "the Church you see is not the Church".

Recommend known good Catechisms and works, and then after they are up to speed on the Creed, they can start forming opinions if they want.

It is just an uncertain opinion of theirs in the end. Their confidence in promoting it is unwarranted on the general forum.

In short, it is like the Covid and vaccine specific board that was recently created to help contain them from being on every board and thread. But it already exists.

A person cannot even list a book for sale without a comment dismissing it because of the date of its publication.

I'm afraid that this is the Church that all of us members find ourselves having to navigate in at the moment.  Other than the proscription against Dogmatic Sedevacantism, which this forum already forbids, on any Catholic discussion forum --but especially one focused on the core of tradition-- it won't be possible to eliminate in discussions the contradictions which the Church herself has not resolved.  Some of these essential contradictions Michael Wilson has brought up here and in many threads.  For many years, since the forum opened (2013?), citations and sources have been offered to illustrate the unresolved and often unresolvable contradictions.

You seem to be suggesting that in theological matters, SD should eliminate all commentary from threads about theology, restricting posters to citations only. But this is why websites like this are called discussion forums. 

Before the Church herself introduced confusion, doubt, and contradiction into her theology, she proclaimed clear, unambiguous truths which needed no commentary or interpretation aside from what her authorized interpreters --ancient and modern-- had provided in approved publications.  It was one of the reasons why there were restrictions on laypeople informally interpreting the documents of the Church: there was no need; nor, obviously, would the Church have the resources to follow every random layman's published commentary to verify the accuracy of such.  More importantly, though, her trained theologians, most of them clerics themselves, were qualified to interpret and performed those duties mostly without controversy. 

It is now an entirely different era and reality.  Were there no Internet and universal access to electronic communication, there would still be the problem that the Church herself created -- actively and passively -- with respect to ambiguity and discordant concepts.  Much of that persists because of the hierarchy's persistent refusal to refer to Tradition with a capital T, substituting modern philosophies and secular agendas which in themselves repudiate absolute truth and will therefore always be incompatible with genuine Catholicism.

Tradition is at least softly sedevacantist relative to the current pope, as he is explicitly anti-Tradition in various matters -- liturgically at the least -- and by implication, in certain areas of moral theology, where his public statements are, conservatively, ambivalent. 

Then you have the problem of refusal of catechetical leadership on the part of the hierarchy, episcopate, and priesthood.  Nature abhors a vacuum.  How unsurprising that laypeople, left to their own devices, would need to help each other in their commitment to the permanent truths of the Church. Since the documents containing those permanent truths are locatable (most accessible to laypeople), I fail to see anything wrong in referring on public discussion forums to such documented truths.

Personally, I'm offended by laypeople exceeding their authority and "declaring" a priest to be "invalid" because of a rite of ordination.  While I agree that non-traditional sacramental rites are inferior to traditional rites, I don't think anyone but God is in a position to know that a man is not authentically ordained.  For the time being, we must assume that a Catholic priest has been validly ordained, whatever the rite.  We needn't assume anything beyond that, such as proper theological formation, etc.