Clarification re: Sedevacantism and the Forum

[TerrorDæmonum]

I'm more than fine with peaceable discussion on topics.  But, niche positions like geocentrists and Feeneyites are typically filled with people who can't control themselves or their posting, and go off the rails.

Sedevacantism is a niche position and I do not know the entire history of this forum on this, but the most active posters promoting this view tend to lack control, interjecting their private personal opinions without regard to consequences.

This is not some wacky issue, but a path I see many Catholics have gone on and have left the Church entirely. And I am not talking about Orthodox, but Protestantism, atheism, weird Neo-Paganism, etc.

I would say that the Sedevacantist discussions should be about the theological possibilities, not actualities, because of the reasons outlined here. Imagine if people were discussing other people's apparent sacramental marriages on this forum and declaring them to be invalid...is that not what people promoting the Sedevacantist view in practice do? It is not discussion of the possibility, but a claim of actuality.

Are any of us in a position to judge that? It defies Church doctrine, the collective teaching of the bishops, and the entire traditional profession of faith. We are not in a position to make this judgement and we should only cite those who are on this matter.

Those promoting Sedevacantism as likely or a fact are essentially dismantling the Church. It is not an isolated statement about an individual prelate, but a statement that has a top-down effect on so many things and when followed to its logical conclusion, it ends with a very abstract view of the Church.

The people who openly promoting defying Canon Law, the authority of the Pope, the authority of Bishops, and the orders of priests are essentially attacking the Holy Catholic Church as any others have done in the past. There is a very fine distinction that they are unwilling or unable to make, except to stubbornly declare their claims and discourage others.

I'd rather someone declare that the earth is a preferred frame of reference. It is at least true when it comes to our daily lives and experiences (except for earthquakes).

[Miriam_M]

Sedevacantism is a niche position and I do not know the entire history of this forum on this, but the most active posters promoting this view tend to lack control, interjecting their private personal opinions without regard to consequences.

Michael Wilson is one of the calmest posters on the forum, as well as being a SV'ist, but I believe he is not active currently, only through Lent, which is why you might have missed him as "an active poster promoting this view."

This is not some wacky issue, but a path I see many Catholics have gone on and have left the Church entirely. And I am not talking about Orthodox, but Protestantism, atheism, weird Neo-Paganism, etc.

Yes.  This is the most serious danger i.m.o., and I have known of contributors to various forums who have indeed endangered their faith, at the least, because of their radical stand and disillusionment, but these are the minority and represent the most "extreme" of that group. 

I would say that the Sedevacantist discussions should be about the theological possibilities, not actualities.... Imagine if people were discussing other people's apparent sacramental marriages on this forum and declaring them to be invalid...is that not what people promoting the Sedevacantist view in practice do? It is not discussion of the possibility, but a claim of actuality.

What you are describing there ^ is what is called Dogmatic Sedevacantism.  There used to be dogmatic sv'ists on SD; I doubt there are now. It is also forbidden. I think a minority of SV'ists today are dogmatic. 

I have gotten into many, many arguments and discussions with "the more vocal" variety, who demanded that I "take a stand" on the papacy.  It has happened repeatedly on various forums -- at least 4 forums.  I have never understood the relentlessly confrontational wing of SV'ism, some of whom have also been cyber-stalkers.  If "you" are so sure of your [dogmatic] position, why do you feel a need to "convert" me? -- is what I want to ask.

In any case, I do not believe that the extremes you and I describe are present enough on this forum to cause a problem. 

[TerrorDæmonum]

which is why you might have missed him as "an active poster promoting this view."

I have not missed him and I am referring to the activity on the board, not persons.

The Sedevacantist position does get promoted and defended around the forum, injected into discussions, and forms the basis for a New Church where there is no visible leadership, and this shows in discussions on the general forum.

but these are the minority and represent the most "extreme" of that group. 

It is the logical conclusion of the arguments: those who are not old who hold the Sedevacantist position tend to use it as a temporary position as they resolve the conflict they see.

I have never understood the relentlessly confrontational wing of SV'ism, some of whom have also been cyber-stalkers.

I understand it. In fact, for those who are Sedevacantist, they would be morally bound to act according to their conscience. Those who believe everybody is duped, in spiritual danger, that orders are in question, that sacraments are invalid, that sacrilege is common, etc, would be morally bound to act on these grave matters.

A lukewarm position is very strange and I don't understand Sedevacantists who do not follow their own conclusions, other than it is a temporary position on the road to who knows where?

In any case, I do not believe that the extremes you and I describe are present enough on this forum to cause a problem.

The more active a person is on this forum, the more the perception of the forum can change. I spent a few days not posting, and the perception of the forum is remarkable for an inactive user: there are no problems from the perspective of someone who is not very active. All the insane political commentary is gone when one is no longer reading it or having to sift through it.

But this is a problem for active posters who expect this forum to be what is claims to be, to have the rules it says it has, and to be an edifying and encouraging place for Catholics.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I've been interested in sedevacantism for a while. One fear that I have is that if sedevacantism is true and I reject it, I'll go to Hell for accepting an apostate as Pope, and equating the profession of the true faith with a false faith. But a second fear I have is that if sedevacantism is false and I become a sedevacantist, I'll go to Hell for not being subject to the Pope. This makes it tempting to abandon the faith...

I'm not a Roman Catholic and have no desire to be. I think the doctrine of eternal hell is evil and abusive, and I refuse to return to an institution that teaches it. Even if I went to Confession, it would give me no peace: at any moment, I may commit mortal sin. I'm not going to join a religion that makes me miserable on top of not guaranteeing heaven. It's universalism or Atheism for me. Period.

[Miriam_M]

I've been interested in sedevacantism for a while. One fear that I have is that if sedevacantism is true and I reject it, I'll go to Hell for accepting an apostate as Pope, and equating the profession of the true faith with a false faith. But a second fear I have is that if sedevacantism is false and I become a sedevacantist, I'll go to Hell for not being subject to the Pope. This makes it tempting to abandon the faith...

I'm not a Roman Catholic and have no desire to be. I think the doctrine of eternal hell is evil and abusive, and I refuse to return to an institution that teaches it. Even if I went to Confession, it would give me no peace: at any moment, I may commit mortal sin. I'm not going to join a religion that makes me miserable on top of not guaranteeing heaven. It's universalism or Atheism for me. Period.

Of course that's a different Michael than our long-standing one to which I refer, but yes, I have seen almost as radical shifts from other Catholics, on various forums.  I think in my own acquaintance with that pattern, the people in question have all been male and have all been either fairly new to Catholicism and/or new to Traddom -- and also young.

Typically, a cradle Catholic now grown to adulthood has a "longer" lens and more stability to his faith, which helps forestall such swings.

And this is logical to me.  When a Catholic relies inordinately on one person (the Pope) to solidify and support his faith, he or she is bound to become dangerously disappointed when that one person's human frailty becomes apparent.

[Miriam_M]

which is why you might have missed him as "an active poster promoting this view."

I have not missed him and I am referring to the activity on the board, not persons.

The Sedevacantist position does get promoted and defended around the forum, injected into discussions, and forms the basis for a New Church where there is no visible leadership, and this shows in discussions on the general forum.

I understand that that troubles you, but it's the Church in her organization and current dysfunction (hierarchically) --which permeates the Church in a variety of ways -- that is responsible for the inevitability of omnipresent discussions.   

I have never understood the relentlessly confrontational wing of SV'ism, some of whom have also been cyber-stalkers.

I understand it. In fact, for those who are Sedevacantist, they would be morally bound to act according to their conscience. Those who believe everybody is duped, in spiritual danger, that orders are in question, that sacraments are invalid, that sacrilege is common, etc, would be morally bound to act on these grave matters.

A lukewarm position is very strange and I don't understand Sedevacantists who do not follow their own conclusions, other than it is a temporary position on the road to who knows where?

But that's where your position fails you, it seems to me, because earlier you spoke (correctly) of the problem I later identified for you as Dogmatic Sedevacantism -- a position we both reject and which many sedes also reject, by the way.  Technically, SV'ism is "a theory" -- a possibility.  It is not a "fact" and absolutely not a "doctrine."  Therefore, the confrontational nature of the more extreme wing has no basis for insistence, because laymen are not authority figures with respect to the authenticity of the seat, or lack of it.  These people are not my priests, and certainly not my spiritual directors; they have no window into my soul and no authority over my conscience.

[Vincentus Ioannes]

I do find it amusing how much energy is directed to attacking sedevacantism when the whole world is falling apart...

[Michael Wilson]

I see on the contrary a greater problem with "habemus papaism" i.e. R & R; If the Conciliar Popes are the "real deal"; then Catholics have to accept the teachings and errors of not only Vatican II but of the post Conciliar Magisterium; for example the New Catechism , which the SSPX details here: https://sspx.org/en/new-catechism-catholic and Pope John Paul II's "Trinitarian Encyclicals" in which the error of universal salvation is taught as well as Ecumenism, Religious Liberty etc. The logical tendency is to lead one back into the Conciliar Church (not that the SSPX is going there). The most recent example of Pope Francis' T.C. Ordering the cancellation of so many public celebrations of the TLM. Where are those people going to go? Logically, back to the N.O.M. Thank goodness many of them are now going to the SSPX and other non-official TLM venues. But the sooner or later one has to deal with the famous problem of authority.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Dealing with temporal problems is not new and we should not be surprised.

This is a distinct issue from denial of Catholic doctrine, schismatic acts, and the ramifications of dismantling the visible Church and having independent, scattered, and rapidly heterodox pockets of individuals with no authority.

This is also a very Latin issue, as it seems those who have the most dire views on the state of the Church just assume that the grass is greener in the East with those bishops (patriarchs) in union with the Pope.

While the Divine Liturgy is a way to escape Roman Rite chaos, that really depends on individual circumstances: in my life, union with the Pope, authority of the bishops, etc, have not been a problem, and I am born and raised traditional Roman Rite and attend it to this day. Sympathy for those who have had other experiences only goes to the appropriate level: it is not a reason to dismantle and deny the Church.

There is nothing new: look to the past and see how the saints behaved and see how the heretics and schismatic behaved. Emulate the saints.

You can see errors where ever you want: what is the purpose of spreading discouraging propaganda? If these things were so clear, then wouldn't at least a percentage of bishops recognize the same? Maybe this is similar to John Calvin, and his proclamation of the "last good Pope", after which, the visible Church was in error and strayed. Do we want to emulate Calvinists?

Can one even make a clear distinction? Stubbornly stating and restating one's opinions and doubts is not enough for anything. That is an admission of defeat, that one is confused. Why spread confusion? Is that not as bad as those one is finding at fault within the Church?

[Kaesekopf]

I do find it amusing how much energy is directed to attacking sedevacantism when the whole world is falling apart...

The same can be said of the young men who glom onto sedevacantism and write screeds against the post-Conciliar Church.    They can't land a date to save their lives, but they can solve the Church's problems. 

[Baylee]

I do find it amusing how much energy is directed to attacking sedevacantism when the whole world is falling apart...

The same can be said of the young men who glom onto sedevacantism and write screeds against the post-Conciliar Church.    They can't land a date to save their lives, but they can solve the Church's problems.

Well, that was quite charitable of you.

[Kaesekopf]

I do find it amusing how much energy is directed to attacking sedevacantism when the whole world is falling apart...

The same can be said of the young men who glom onto sedevacantism and write screeds against the post-Conciliar Church.    They can't land a date to save their lives, but they can solve the Church's problems.

Well, that was quite charitable of you.

Show me the lie and then I'll worry about that.    For the most part, the loudest, most brash voices that are pro-sedevacantism are the disaffected young  men.  If the SV cohort were made up of them, I'd ban SVism in a heartbeat.  However, I think SVs can bring up good and important points.  I respect a number of SV posters on this forum, and I want a space for them, as well.  Michael Wilson is definitely one of those posters, and there's a few others, as well.  I've taken a trad-cumenical approach with this Forum, but that doesn't mean we haven't seen people attempt to abuse it. 

Ultimately, to my mind, I don't care who you think the Pontiff is (or isn't).  I agree there are bigger fish to fry in the Church and in the world.  The petty squabbling is such a waste of time.  My approach to SVism is stated clearly in the Forum Rules. 

[Baylee]

I do find it amusing how much energy is directed to attacking sedevacantism when the whole world is falling apart...

The same can be said of the young men who glom onto sedevacantism and write screeds against the post-Conciliar Church.    They can't land a date to save their lives, but they can solve the Church's problems.

Well, that was quite charitable of you.

Show me the lie and then I'll worry about that.    For the most part, the loudest, most brash voices that are pro-sedevacantism are the disaffected young  men.  If the SV cohort were made up of them, I'd ban SVism in a heartbeat.  However, I think SVs can bring up good and important points.  I respect a number of SV posters on this forum, and I want a space for them, as well.  Michael Wilson is definitely one of those posters, and there's a few others, as well.  I've taken a trad-cumenical approach with this Forum, but that doesn't mean we haven't seen people attempt to abuse it. 

Ultimately, to my mind, I don't care who you think the Pontiff is (or isn't).  I agree there are bigger fish to fry in the Church and in the world.  The petty squabbling is such a waste of time.  My approach to SVism is stated clearly in the Forum Rules.

So, it's only uncharitable if it's a lie.  I'll keep that in mind.

Given where this thread has gone, perhaps it's high time to lock this thread since the clarification of SV and the sub-forum was made months/years? ago. 

[TerrorDæmonum]

So, it's only uncharitable if it's a lie.  I'll keep that in mind.

Given where this thread has gone, perhaps it's high time to lock this thread since the clarification of SV and the sub-forum was made months/years? ago.

The reason why it is active is that the Sedevacantist posters have not all kept their Sedevacantist ideas out of the general forum. Every single thread can potentially become a Sedevacantist Debate if it involves anything that any given Sedevacantist decides to reject.

The rest of the Church has obligations and being discouraged by the self-willed and certain and independent crowd who call themselves Catholic is a problem. Sedevacantists are not united at all, yet, their efforts on this forum on the general forum is unified in discouraging non-Sedevacantists.

There are Sedevacantists here who do not do this, but they also do not disusade or rebut Sedevacantists acting badly, so the people who represent this group tend to represent them poorly, such as yourself, whose first post on this forum was to question me about a Sedevacantist topic, and then quickly started to personally heckle me.

Why did you even join this forum if you were not interested in it? The Sedevacantist content is on a board that is not really visible to the public, and yet, it is the majority of your posts. Do you think it makes sense to come to a Catholic forum that recognizes the Pope explicitly, and then find fault with members on this forum who share that view?

I don't go to Sedevacantist forums and do what you do...it wouldn't make sense. It would be trolling. It would be uncharitable. It would be a waste of time.

[Michael Wilson]

T.D.

Dealing with temporal problems is not new and we should not be surprised.
This is a distinct issue from denial of Catholic doctrine, schismatic acts, and the ramifications of dismantling the visible Church and having independent, scattered, and rapidly heterodox pockets of individuals with no authority.

It isn't a "temporal problem" issue it is a doctrinal problem: "Denial of Catholic doctrine; schismatic acts; dismantling of the Visible Church etc. etc." coming from Rome. If this problem did not exist, then neither would Traditionalists.
T.D.

in my life, union with the Pope, authority of the bishops, etc, have not been a problem, and I am born and raised traditional Roman Rite and attend it to this day. Sympathy for those who have had other experiences only goes to the appropriate level: it is not a reason to dismantle and deny the Church.

Wonderful. But this has not been my experience or those of a great number of people who are assisting at the "pockets" of traditionalist Chapels that I have assisted at.

here is nothing new: look to the past and see how the saints behaved and see how the heretics and schismatic behaved. Emulate the saints.

This situation is totally different than anything else that I have read of in the history of the Church. Msgr. Lefebvre hasn't been canonized, yet; but he said the same thing.

You can see errors where ever you want: what is the purpose of spreading discouraging propaganda? If these things were so clear, then wouldn't at least a percentage of bishops recognize the same? Maybe this is similar to John Calvin, and his proclamation of the "last good Pope", after which, the visible Church was in error and strayed. Do we want to emulate Calvinists

Sorry, I didn't read your link on "discouraging propaganda", before responding to this, but John Calvin denied the authority of the magisterium and went Martin Luther's way of exalting "sola scriptura"; but guess who the last few "Popes" have been promoting? Martin Luther.
Finally, stating that Religious Liberty or Ecumenism has been condemned by the Church, is not "spreading one's own opinion" or being confused; on the contrary this is Church doctrine.