Question For Sedevacantists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lormar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lormar

Guest
What Popes do you reject and why, with an example or two of the heresy?:
 
Just wanted to add that I am not trying to be a smart aleck, I truly want to know.
 
NeedImprovement said:
You may wish to see post # 13 by CAF Moderator Jo Benedict at this link before going too much further.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127816
Click to expand...
Thank you for that link. I was going to respond, but I don’t want to contravene the forum rules.

I do, however, notice that the original ban is two years old, applies only to “the foreseeable future,” and was never made a sticky. Lormar and I have discussed the issue of sedevacantism quite civilly on two recent threads without any punishment or censorship thus far. Is the ban still in effect?

I’ll also note that atheists are permitted to air their perspective rather freely on the Philosophy boards, seemingly without much in the way of restriction. By the way, I think this is a good thing—a free and honest exchange of ideas, when conducted politely, is rarely ever harmful. Neither atheism nor sedevacantism are going to be on the wane anytime soon, and I think it’s edifying if we can explore and debate both perspectives in the interest of better understanding our Catholic faith.
 
But it’s discussed here in quite a few threads, and what you directed me to is a few years old.

If this isn’t allowed, then lock it.
 
Traditionally any who hold the Sedevacantist position in this forum are attacked, slandered, harassed, condemned to Hell, called names, and then eventually banned for “uncharitable behavior.”

Thomas
 
Thomas, anyone who holds that position anywhere is treated the same way. I think it’s terrible.

In any event, I don’t want to break any rules either. Since it has been discussed so freely here, I thought nothing of posting this question.

Once again, if I have done wrong, mea culpa, and lock the thing.
 
Yggdrasil said:
Thank you for that link. I was going to respond, but I don’t want to contravene the forum rules.

I do, however, notice that the original ban is two years old, applies only to “the foreseeable future,” and was never made a sticky. Lormar and I have discussed the issue of sedevacantism quite civilly on two recent threads without any punishment or censorship thus far. Is the ban still in effect?

I’ll also note that atheists are permitted to air their perspective rather freely on the Philosophy boards, seemingly without much in the way of restriction. By the way, I think this is a good thing—a free and honest exchange of ideas, when conducted politely, is rarely ever harmful. Neither atheism nor sedevacantism are going to be on the wane anytime soon, and I think it’s edifying if we can explore and debate both perspectives in the interest of better understanding our Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
Lormar said:
Thomas, anyone who holds that position anywhere is treated the same way. I think it’s terrible.

In any event, I don’t want to break any rules either. Since it has been discussed so freely here, I thought nothing of posting this question.

Once again, if I have done wrong, mea culpa, and lock the thing.
Click to expand...
This is only my guess … but it goes something like this :

First of all, what Thomas58 says is true. I recall one thread in particular which started innocently enough - a fellow member posted a link ( from a Sedevacantist site) wanting to know if they were in Communion with the Catholic Church. It wasn’t long before a considerable amount of uncomplimentary comments were posted about Sedevacantists. Given the harsh language they use themselves on their sites, (regarding certain popes for example) one could almost anticipate a backlash here at CAF - sort of understandable, but never commendable. On that specific thread, I personally posted a comment which mocked those Sedevacantists in particular. I regret ever doing it now.

So no one is questioning the ability (it’s a quality) of the above-quoted members to discuss sedevacantism in a civil manner. However, internet forums bear their own unique phenomenae at times. One of these I like to label “internet swarming” . I’ve seen it occur here in various threads (and as I said, I also participated in it [Lormar may I borrow your *mea culpa?]). No matter how inflammatory the remarks may be that we are commenting on, when members of a forum gang up on a fellow member, or attack a particular group , it’s never good. And it is particularly unbecoming regarding CAF decorum because we end up resembling the crowd crying, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

What we are given here within the theme of CAF is a generous amount of latitude from the moderators. Maybe we shouldn’t see it as a ban, but rather as a caution that as civil as we may wish to be when discussing these things, the possibility remains that we might open the door to a new round of insults against some other child ( or children) of God - no matter what their wounds.

If there is a notice posted regarding Sedevacantism, irregardless of whether or not it is a sticky or if a thread is locked, it is there because of our past track record. If it is still there after two years, someone has seen fit not to remove it.

Please forgive me if I gave you this …:onpatrol:… kind of impression. I’m not a moderator and I don’t think I’d ever be able to do their job as I tend to get emotionally involved … simply wanted you to be aware the notice exists… didn’t mean for it to turn into a big thing.

God Bless.
🙂
 
I wish they would allow this subject to be discussed because I think it can be shown that the Sedevacantists are mistaken.

Moderators: Will you allow this to be discussed?
 
Then in other threads throughout the forum you find nothing but praise, admiration, respect, and understanding when discussing protestants and extremely far left catholics who support women’s ordination, etc…shameful double standard
Thomas58 said:
Traditionally any who hold the Sedevacantist position in this forum are attacked, slandered, harassed, condemned to Hell, called names, and then eventually banned for “uncharitable behavior.”

Thomas
Click to expand...
 
It’s not just here, Michael, and it’s even worse on other sites, especially from those who should and do know better.

NeedImprovement (and don’t we all?), thank you for your very clear and well thought out response.

Ultima, if you can prove them wrong, wouldn’t you be doing a great service to both souls and Holy Mother Church by doing so? We need these people with us, not against us.

One of satan’s greatest victory was in his dividing us all and making us hyphenated Catholics ( I will no longer qualify my “Roman Catholic”) and getting us to turn on one another.
 


I LOVE you guys a lot but you’re making my head hurt a little 😃
 
I am kind of curious myself. My looking into sedevacantism has generally produced ad hominem arguments and exaggerated reading of certain teachings and their standing in the Church. Most Holy Family Monastery, CMRI, and others all approach the subject in this way.

However, Fr. Daniel Sanborn at St. Gertrude the Great parish, on traditionalmass.org is particularly persuasive, especially since he is a very astute and talented writer. He can also be quite humerous. He and Fr. Anthony Cekada of the same are the only sedevacantist writings I have found worthy of serious consideration. All others generally strain at a gnat.

So if anyone on here has material they want to try on us, I say let’s go! I have never accepted the arguments of sedevacantism, and the SSPX has been particularly strong against this issue, so I would like to see what types of arguments a sede would have for us.

Do not be shy!:D;)
 
Lormar said:
Ultima, if you can prove them wrong, wouldn’t you be doing a great service to both souls and Holy Mother Church by doing so? We need these people with us, not against us.
Click to expand...
First, I wouldn’t say I could prove them wrong, but in my experience most of them have arrived at their conclusion (their position) based on a theological error - in fact, every Sedevacantist I have had a discussion with was basing his conclusion on that error. I can prove that to them, but it doesn’t mean they will change their position. They have other arguments they can bring forward, and these arguments cannot be proven wrong. I think they are wrong but I can’t prove it, just as they can’t prove they are right. The “other arguments” I am referring to (such as the new ordination of Bishops being unvalid) have not been settled by the Church. Therefore, both sides can only give their opinion.

What I usually say to them is that it is more prudent to suspend judgment on this point, rather than draw the conclusion. The reason being, we have no duty before God to judge such things, and if we are wrong it could result in eternal damnation. Better to suspend judgment and let a future Pope sort it out.
 
Lormar said:
N.I., I don’t get it.
Click to expand...
It’s because your most recent post didn’t appear on my screen when I was posting … imagine you hadn’t posted post # 11 and it may make sense to you : One post hints at less restrictions and the next hints at more restrictions … but then, it’s not a perfect world.

And yes, absolutely some forums who should know better ***are ***worse . I’ve experienced a type of persecution personally from a Catholic site which is supposed to be in honour of our Blessed Mother - they didn’t know the difference between tolerance and moral relativism. I’ve been inactive there for over a year now.

I also belonged to a low-grade no purpose forum for a few months which permitted almost any kind of language and the mocking of little people (dwarves - they used another name) . I got booted from that forum … best thing that ever happened to me - because it was soon after this that I joined CAF ; and they do show mercy in the form of latitude here … some of those other forums will boot you if you so much as look sideways at a moderator through your monitor screen (:)).

That comment in post # 12 wasn’t meant for you Lorimar because I never saw post #11 when I posted it . but please feel free to be included in the comment minus the “*but you’re making my head hurt a little”. *

(… sorry, I must leave CAF now or I’ll be late)
God Bless.
  • It just happened again, I didn’t see posts 14 or 15 as I was writing this (now my head really hurts:D )
 
Ultima_Ratio said:
First, I wouldn’t say I could prove them wrong, but in my experience most of them have arrived at their conclusion (their position) based on a theological error - in fact, every Sedevacantist I have had a discussion with was basing his conclusion on that error. I can prove that to them, but it doesn’t mean they will change their position. They have other arguments they can bring forward, and these arguments cannot be proven wrong. I think they are wrong but I can’t prove it, just as they can’t prove they are right. The “other arguments” I am referring to (such as the new ordination of Bishops being unvalid) have not been settled by the Church. Therefore, both sides can only give their opinion.

What I usually say to them is that it is more prudent to suspend judgment on this point, rather than draw the conclusion. The reason being, we have no duty before God to judge such things, and if we are wrong it could result in eternal damnation. Better to suspend judgment and let a future Pope sort it out.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Anyone who is interested can pull up the history of old threads and see for them selves who was uncharitable and who was not. Don’t believe everything you read without checking it out for yourself.

I think the greatest problem can be found by googling these sites and checking out their claims, especially how the speak of those in the Church beloved of us Catholics. It is a constant theme that instead of “Yo Mama so fat” it’s “Yo Papa so heretical”. Yes, most people have a hard time taking insults to one’s family with equanimity, even under the best of circumstances.

Again, go to sites and see. Pull up the history here and see.
 
Hi

I think there have been quite a few misconceptions about the theological position of sedevacantism. Since the question was posed - let me interject some information that some of you may find useful. First of all - the position taken by some Catholic Clergy resulted from the changes made after Vatican Council II (Many of the same changes / abuses have been complained about by some of you here) Keep in mind - the theological position was taken by CLERGY not Laity. That is one important distinction that needs to be understood. The theological position is viable if and only if the intention is to preserve the orthodoxy of the Catholic Faith and Sacraments. What it isnt is an attack on the Papacy or any of the powers of the Papacy as infallibly defined by Vatican Council I and as given to St Peter by Our Lord. The Clergy that has retreated into Sedevacantism doesnt hold authority. Cannot legislate cannot define - is not autonomous. Essentially it is in a holding pattern with doubts about the legitimacy of the current claimant to the chair of St Peter due to the presense of Heresy or defection from Dogma and views this period of history as an interregnum. Its purpose must always be for the preservation of Orthodoxy in the Sacraments (Proper Form Matter and Intent) of each. That primarily is the reason that some have retreated into that theological position. So as to your question - Sedevacantists question the legitimacy of post Vatican II claimants to the Chair of St Peter - not the office itself.

Pax
 
Malleus_01 said:
That primarily is the reason that some have retreated into that theological position. So as to your question - Sedevacantists question the legitimacy of post Vatican II claimants to the Chair of St Peter - not the office itself.

Pax
Click to expand...
They do more than question. I think anyone who is well informed and honest will have some doubts about the recent Popes. But questioning, or wondering, if they have lost their office through heresy is different than taking the positive position that they have. Any comments on that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top