Is Sedevacantism Mainstream?

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

twf

Guest
For years I was a big fan of Fr Z’s blog and read it with great interest, especially when he would analyze the deeper meaning and history of the collect of the day, etc. In recent years, in my opinion, he’s grown increasingly sensationalist and divisive. I’ve noticed a gradual increase of his readers posting comments along the lines of “Benedict is still the true Pope, Francis is an imposter”. Finally today I see Fr Z is promoting a book that promotes this sedevacantist position… without going so far as to say he agrees… it still seems that sedevacantism is amazingly becoming almost mainstream in the “traditional Catholic” community??
 
twf said:
Finally today I see Fr Z is promoting a book that promotes this sedevacantist position… without going so far as to say he agrees…
Click to expand...

He went over the contents of a book he was given that is not sedevacantist. Sedevacantistism argues that there is currently no Pope. The book argues that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is still the true Pope, which while he does not outright deny, he does not outright agree with it either. And as someone who reads his blog, I sincerely doubt Fr. Z is a “Benevacantist”.
 
Last edited:
True, it’s not technically sedevacantism. Regardless, you see no issue with a very popular priest promoting a book that argues the present Pope is not truly the Pope? If a similar book had been promoted during Benedict’s reign, would you have shrugged and said “oh yeah priests routinely question the dogmatic fact that is a papal election! Nothing to see here!” ?
 
twf said:
True, it’s not technically sedevacantism.
Click to expand...
“Technically”? It outright isn’t by the very definition of sedevacantism. The very word means “Empty seat”. Saying Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is Pope is saying the seat is not empty.
twf said:
Regardless, you see no issue with a very popular priest promoting a book that argues the present Pope is not truly the Pope?
Click to expand...
Presenting what a book discusses and its contents is not a promotion of said book.
twf said:
If a similar book had been promoted during Benedict’s reign, would you have shrugged and said “oh yeah priests routinely question the dogmatic fact that is a papal election! Nothing to see here!” ?
Click to expand...
If we’re being precise, I wouldn’t have cared two bits, because I was Protestant and in middle school at the time of his election. But let’s say that he was elected now that I’m Catholic and my current age. There are already people who believe that we haven’t had a Pope since Pius XII, some even earlier than that. So naturally they believe that Benedict XVI was never the Pope, even if this book would have never been published. People will use whatever they want to believe in whatever they want. Acting like these arguments do not exist doesn’t do anyone any favors. We do not ban people from reading the Quran or the Book of Mormon so that people can examine the arguments for themselves (granted, so long as they aren’t actively endangering their faith). The same should go for this.
 
Last edited:
Is there any merit to those claims that Benedict XVl is still Pope?
I mean Popes have resigned before but usually for different reasons. By no means were they still living in the Vatican.
Also there have in history been Popes who we don’t consider Popes now, and people who the Church wasn’t sure if they were Popes who we now know they were.
Is it possible down the road Francis could be considered an antipope?
Disclaimer by the way , I’m not saying this in any kind of ill respect for Pope Francis, more just wondering about the canon law and how that works, a pope resigning like Pope Benedict XVl did is a first, even though other popes have resigned, I mean look at Pope Benedict lX, he was made pope at 20, wanted to get married, left, couldn’t marry the girl, came back, ousted his Godfather or some relation of him, I forgot what, was ousted, and came back again before being thrown out a final time. Only pope in history to be pope at three different times. The Vatican I’m sure doesn’t want to ever go back to those days.
 
Last edited:
It stands to reason that when you have the unprecedented situation of a traditional Pope who has resigned, but is still alive with the title “Emeritus”, co-existing with a progressive Pope who is unpopular with a lot of traditionalists, you’re going to get these types of statements that Francis isn’t the true Pope. As Fauken explained, it isn’t really sedevacantism. When Pope Benedict passes away, they will have to find some new arguments or wrinkles.

As for “very popular priest”, I think we’ve all seen many different examples of “very popular priests” who increasingly play to their audiences or become more sensationalist the more they go on. They like having the big audience, maybe they have personal wishes or plans to effect changes in the Church. One should pray for such priests.

As for sedevacantism or questioning Francis’ papacy being “mainstream”, I don’t think what you see on Catholic sites on the Internet is generally “mainsream”. The “mainstream” Catholic is not on here paying attention to that stuff. Most “mainstream” Catholics are okay with Francis being Pope or if they have a criticism it’s that he isn’t cleaning up the abuse scandal fast enough, or isn’t bringing in some progressive development dear to their heart fast enough. They aren’t thinking in terms of Benedict still being Pope. What you see on these websites are the usual crowd of traditional Catholics turning to the Internet because they feel unsupported or even victimized in their parishes.
 
Maybe just a totally personal and anecdotal view here, but it’s been a long time since I last met a sedevacantist, or inadvertently stumbled on a blog or article making that argument. I think in the 1990s and early 2000s there were many more of them. Possibly this decrease was thanks to Benedict XVI reaching out to traditionalist Catholics and seeking, as far as reasonable, to address their concerns.
 
I was a sedevacantist once, for I were a protestant, but I realize I were certainly not mainstream as I thought I was.
 
twf said:
. I’ve noticed a gradual increase of his readers posting comments along the lines of “Benedict is still the true Pope, Francis is an imposter”.
Click to expand...
Any who are silly enough to make that statement or statements like it need to be aware of how Pope Benedict would respond to them .

I feel drawn to refer to them as Protestants , but that would be an insult to Protestantism .
 
It’s pretty telling that many of the same people who condemn others for all sorts of sexual sins have no problem with disobeying the authority of the Pope because they’ve decided on their own (or with help form one of these authors leading people astray) he’s not the true Pope or whatever.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
It’s pretty telling that many of the same people who condemn others for all sorts of sexual sins have no problem with disobeying the authority of the Pope
Click to expand...
I read the alt-Catholic press and websites pretty regularly, and I have never encountered anyone who questions the legitimacy of the current papacy whose main gripe against the Pope was something other than that they consider him too soft on homosexuality.

Regardless of whatever other gripes they might have, their main grip has universally been this, without exception.
 
GordonP said:
I have never encountered anyone who questions the legitimacy of the current papacy whose main gripe against the Pope was something other than that they consider him too soft on homosexuality.
Click to expand...
I think there are a lot of US people who have concerns about the Pope regarding the death penalty change to the catechism. (Obviously, those people who are in countries where the death penalty was abolished in the past wouldn’t care much.) I have also met people whose main problem with the Pope is that they think he is pushing socialism. And others who just feel we should go back to the traditional practices. Of course, all of these groups are generally happy to jump on the anti-gay bandwagon if it will support their cause against Pope Francis.

Edited to add, I also forgot the whole “Amoris Laetitia” dealing with divorced people and communion, and also the permissions for non-Catholic spouses to receive communion in certain countries. The whole Dubia business was all about Amoris Laetitia, and had nothing to do with gays.
 
Last edited:
GordonP said:
I read the alt-Catholic press and websites pretty regularly, and I have never encountered anyone who questions the legitimacy of the current papacy whose main gripe against the Pope was something other than that they consider him too soft on homosexuality.

Regardless of whatever other gripes they might have, their main grip has universally been this, without exception.
Click to expand...
Really? There are threads on this forum right now where people are complaining about many other aspects of this papacy such as the teaching on salvation for the Jews, other EENS issues, the death penalty, divorce, and on and on. While it is a very small (and often intellectually inconsistent) fringe, the criticisms of the Pope are much broader than being too nice to gay people.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I think there are a lot of US people who have concerns about the Pope regarding the death penalty change to the catechism.
Click to expand...
Not a single one whose primary gripe is that Pope Francis is too soft on homosexuality, as far as I’ve seen.
Tis_Bearself said:
Of course, all of these groups are generally happy to jump on the anti-gay bandwagon if it will support their cause against Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, every single one was already on that bandwagon.
Tis_Bearself said:
The whole Dubia business was all about Amoris Laetitia, and had nothing to do with gays.
Click to expand...
Anyone I’ve seen who supported the dubia business was a very vocal opponent of LGBT rights of any sort long before AL came on the scene.

I have come to the conclusion that the core defining issue for those who question the validity of Pope Francis is his perceived softness on homosexuality. All other issues are secondary, whether it’s the death penalty, socialism, other sex-related issues, or his friendly overtures to the Islamic community, or his perceived disregard of the Traditionalist faction.

A while back there was a poster on some thread here that called this faction the “Westboro Catholic Church”. I think he or she hit the nail on the head.
 
With all due respect, GordonP, I don’t think you and I have talked to 100 percent of the same people.
I personally didn’t know Catholics were so frothing at the mouth about LGBT until I joined CAF. I never meet people like that in real life.
Not even at conservative events, because a lot of the big conservatives are actually gay.
 
Last edited:
Father Z is not a Sedevacantist in the least, unless one’s definition of Sedevacantism is anyone who criticizes or disagrees with the Pope on some issues (in which case 90% of Catholics, and great Saints like St Peter Damian and St Catherine of Siena would qualify as “Sedevacantists” in one way or another).

Recognizing a Pope and accepting you have a duty to assent to his authentic Magisterial Authority does not mean you cannot criticize a Pope’s when he makes mistakes or disagree with his prudential decisions.
 
He may not personally question the legitimacy of +Francis’ Papacy, but he’s currently promoting a book that does just that. The link to the post is in this thread.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
With all due respect, GordonP, I don’t think you and I have talked to 100 percent of the same people.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think we have more so than not. I rarely encountered any Catholics that were so frothing at the mouth about LGBT until I started exploring the alt-right press and internet. CAF is relatively mild compared to many of the sites out there.

As for gay conservatives, I can’t recall a single one who ever went so far as to actually question the legitimacy of the current papacy, except perhaps some token “ex-gays”. Not all conservative (or progressive, for that matter) critics of Pope Francis deny his legitimacy. But as far as I can tell, the main gripe of those who do is that he is soft on LGBT issues, regardless of what their other gripes may be.

Nor am I saying that everyone whose main gripe is that the Pope is too soft on LGBT issues questions the legitimacy of his papacy. It’s only a very vocal minority that do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top