The Sedevacantist Thesis

[TerrorDæmonum]

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.

[TerrorDæmonum]

This is a general "let us use the boards we have for the appropriate topics" plea really. But the constant posting of "why does this concern a Sedevacantist who is not affected?" news stories is an obvious promotion of the view and if they want that context, they should have it in the appropriate board.

It makes it impossible to have non-SV discussions on current events.

[GiftOfGod]

It makes it impossible to have non-SV discussions on current events.

Give us some examples.

[Michael Wilson]

Joseph,
you refuse to accept that there is any crisis in the Church caused by the teachings of Vatican II and their implementation. What are you doing here?

[TerrorDæmonum]

Joseph,
you refuse to accept that there is any crisis in the Church caused by the teachings of Vatican II and their implementation. What are you doing here?

Did I refuse to accept anything?

Again, people are jumping ahead with assumptions based on preconceptions. There is very much black and white thinking here based on things that have a multitude of responses.

As far as the crisis goes, do you think this occupies my time?

I do not define my life, my religion, my religious practices, my works of mercy, my prayers, based on the crises in the Church. What use is there for us to dwell on this?

All the topics of discussion are the same as 10 years ago. The same objections to Vatican II, including insistence on heretical interpretations of every little word whenever the chance is seen for it, are made. The same complaints.

The names have changed though.

Has Catholic living changed? Has Catholic doctrine changed? Has the Catechism changed? No.

That is why I am here. If I want a group for moaning about things I cannot control, I will certainly see your point, but a bunch of people going around saying to other Catholics "your saints aren't saints, your Pope isn't the Pope, your sacraments and priests are not possibly, etc" is not encouraging.

Even people who are not yet able to actually see a priest or attend mass get told about the NO being sacrilegious and given Sedevacantist propaganda.

The Church is bigger than that. Catholic living is more than that.

[TerrorDæmonum]

The fixation on Vatican II and the same old complaints about the Popes and the NO are exactly the same as they were 10 years ago and more.

Remember, I was born and raised in the traditional Roman Rite. It is what I knew exclusively and what I still have.

The "crisis" to me might be more like a distant war I cannot do anything about.

If that makes sense.

I have longed been more concerned with how we should live, moral theology, than church politics.

And I have long found there much to discuss and to better understand about moral theology and how we should live on forums. If heresies about, if errors about morality are spread, and if society is corrupt, shouldn't that be the priority rather than becoming skeptics of everything we see in the Vatican?

[mikemac]

That's why the sub forum was created.

The Sedevacantist Thesis

This is the place for any sedeplenist vs sedevacantist debates and discussion.

[TerrorDæmonum]

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.

[TerrorDæmonum]

There are too many "why are you on a trad forum?" posts in response to people who don't share opinions, and those opinions are thrown around with the assumption they are obviously right.

They are not obvious. They are a choice one has made, just as other people have examined the same issues and facts and have had different conclusions.

Seeking trad credentials at the expense of virtue is not at all a good thing.

We shouldn't have to join in on rash judgement of accusing other people of sin just because they attend or celebrate another rite. That does not mean we don't see the issues in the development and promotion of that right or that there was a grave issue in its development all the other facts. It just means that we accept the Blessed Sacrament and the priests regardless. It is a huge leap to examine the issues in the Novus Ordo to accusing the sacraments of being invalid or the priests grave sinners just because they are obeying lawful authority and doing what they can with what they have.

If Sedevacantists tell people others are either with them or against them, we would be forced to think they think they are entirely distinct from the Holy Catholic Church, which does not exist solely within Sedevacantist clergy, and thus, logically, they would be admitting to a complete separation and demanding others accept that distinction.

The conclusion would only be one thing.

[AlNg]

Has Catholic living changed?

Yes, i think so. Take for example the question on the indissolubility of marriage. In 1929 in the USA there were about 9 marriage annulments granted. At that time marriage annulments were granted for only serious reasons such as the man who attempted to contract the marriage was already married to someone else. Recently in the US, marriage annulments have been running as high as 40,000 or more per year. So they changed the teaching on reasons for granting a marriage annulment. Luke 16: 18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." What happens in the case of a married couple seeking an annulment is that the tribunal demands that they divorce before the process begins. They then divorce, and the tribunal hears their case, grants the annulment, and the man (or wife) marries another. I don't see where Jesus said anything about a civil divorce does not count as a divorce.  So the theologians figured out a pharisaical way to grant divorces, by using semantics to claim that the couple was never married. But did Jesus ever say that civil marriages don't count as a real marriage? As cardinal Kasper has said: "...take the case of a couple who are ten years married and have children, in the first years they had a happy marriage, but for different reasons the marriage fell apart. This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make sense to me. This is an abstract canonical construction. It's divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way."
So Catholics can now get divorced and remarried for flimsy reasons, whereas in the past it was not possible. I.e., Catholic living has changed.

[Michael Wilson]

Joseph"

Did I refuse to accept anything?
Again, people are jumping ahead with assumptions based on preconceptions. There is very much black and white thinking here based on things that have a multitude of responses.

As far as the crisis goes, do you think this occupies my time?

I do not define my life, my religion, my religious practices, my works of mercy, my prayers, based on the crises in the Church. What use is there for us to dwell on this?

All the topics of discussion are the same as 10 years ago. The same objections to Vatican II, including insistence on heretical interpretations of every little word whenever the chance is seen for it, are made. The same complaints.
The names have changed though.
Has Catholic living changed? Has Catholic doctrine changed? Has the Catechism changed? No.

That is why I am here. If I want a group for moaning about things I cannot control, I will certainly see your point, but a bunch of people going around saying to other Catholics "your saints aren't saints, your Pope isn't the Pope, your sacraments and priests are not possibly, etc" is not encouraging.

Even people who are not yet able to actually see a priest or attend mass get told about the NO being sacrilegious and given Sedevacantist propaganda.

The Church is bigger than that. Catholic living is more than that.

Yes, you did in the bolded, and other posts stated that the objections against Vatican II are essentially baseless.
"Does it occupy your time?" Based on what you stated above, you are not even aware that there is a crisis.
"Has Catholic living, doctrine, Catechism Changed?" Yes, a new Catechism, new magisterium based on the errors of Vatican II; new morality pushed by the Vatican II Popes and bishops"; its all changed.
Catholic resistance to Vatican II and the Conciliar Popes is not based on "sede-Vacantist propaganda"; it is based on the incompatibility of these with Catholic doctrine. If your spirituality and sacramental life include these false principles, then the consequences will be disastrous.

[TerrorDæmonum]

"Does it occupy your time?" Based on what you stated above, you are not even aware that there is a crisis.

You seem to expect me to have the same mindset as the majority of people who discuss this on the forum in making assumptions about what I think.

I am acutely aware there is a crisis.

I am even more acutely aware how it is resolved. I know the Lord triumphs, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that I am mortal.

Everything I do tries to keep this in mind.

I don't judge "Catholic living" on statistics about the general population. The fact that some people do shows one is severely missing the point.

[Michael Wilson]

Joseph,
I don't know what you think; your posts on the Crisis of the Church are all over the place. Your exchange with T.C. Reads like you are denying that there is any real basis for objecting to the teachings of Vatican II. But when I challenge you directly, you change into a Trad.

I don't judge "Catholic living" on statistics about the general population. The fact that some people do shows one is severely missing the point.

Right, but who is claiming that one has to "judge Catholic living on stats about the g.p."? 
One judges Catholic living, by the teachings of the Church. Right?

[TerrorDæmonum]

Joseph,
I don't know what you think; your posts on the Crisis of the Church are all over the place.

Keep in mind that almost all of my posts on that topic specifically are responses to other posts.

I am not pushing my opinion for the most part, but replying to specific comments.

Imagine a forum where people are some completely libertine and some completely puritanical. If I were posting there, only responding to their posts, I would seem to be all over the place to them if they only considered that their own positions were the only ones.

Your exchange with T.C. Reads like you are denying that there is any real basis for objecting to the teachings of Vatican II. But when I challenge you directly, you change into a Trad.

Keep in mind it is not a binary issue here. There are layers of aspects to consider.

At the top there is the nature of the Church, the authority of the Pope and bishops, and at the bottom there are other things.

If the top is being addressed, I don't address the bottom at the same time.

This is why more measured discussion is needed, because constant focus at the extreme makes actual discussion impossible.

One judges Catholic living, by the teachings of the Church. Right?

Yes, but it was more about one's own living and choices in the Church from the original context.

It was a reference to a previous comment here.

[GiftOfGod]

Has Catholic living changed?

Yes, i think so. Take for example the question on the indissolubility of marriage. In 1929 in the USA there were about 9 marriage annulments granted. At that time marriage annulments were granted for only serious reasons such as the man who attempted to contract the marriage was already married to someone else. Recently in the US, marriage annulments have been running as high as 40,000 or more per year. So they changed the teaching on reasons for granting a marriage annulment. Luke 16: 18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." What happens in the case of a married couple seeking an annulment is that the tribunal demands that they divorce before the process begins. They then divorce, and the tribunal hears their case, grants the annulment, and the man (or wife) marries another. I don't see where Jesus said anything about a civil divorce does not count as a divorce.  So the theologians figured out a pharisaical way to grant divorces, by using semantics to claim that the couple was never married. But did Jesus ever say that civil marriages don't count as a real marriage? As cardinal Kasper has said: "...take the case of a couple who are ten years married and have children, in the first years they had a happy marriage, but for different reasons the marriage fell apart. This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make sense to me. This is an abstract canonical construction. It's divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way."
So Catholics can now get divorced and remarried for flimsy reasons, whereas in the past it was not possible. I.e., Catholic living has changed.

Those aren't "Catholics" getting annulments nor are those tribunals or theologians "Catholic". Easy explanation.