FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sedevacantism Debate at this Forum
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Ironically, whether we realize it or not there is already a debate on sedevacantism going on right now.    Huh?
Did someone say ironic?  Where's Alanis Morrisette when we need her?  Huh?
(01-22-2013, 09:38 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Did someone say ironic?  Where's Alanis Morrisette when we need her?  Huh?

Fo' Shame  No, no, no. What Vincentius pointed out is actually ironic. Alanis Morrisette will not do in this circumstance.

Ironic? Yes. As ironic as some good advice that you just didn't take.
Even if sedevacantism were a legitimate theological opinion that was worthy of discussion, it would not be practical to do so on Fish Eaters.  Consider that the forum rules contain the following: When speaking about the current Holy Father or any previous Pope,he will be spoken of respectfully. He may be referred to using his proper titles, e.g., The Holy Father, or his Papal name, e.g., in the case of the current Pontiff, Benedict XVI or Benedict.

Any criticism of Papal actions must be done respectfully with due consideration given both to the person and office of the Pope, remembering that he is the Vicar of Christ and holds the Keys. This means referring to him as an heretic, accusing him of heresy, etc. is not allowed on this forum. Sarcastic or vitriolic comments, or anything not worthy of the dignity of the Papacy is not allowed. He should always be given the benefit of the doubt for his actions, as far as reason allows, out of respect for the Throne of Peter and the Magisterium.


The SV position is based on claiming that recent popes are heretics.  In order to justify their position they are constantly needing to interpret papal actions in the worst possible light, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt.  Even assuming that there is a respectful way in which to call someone a heretic and anti-pope, these people, in most cases, would not be inclined to use it. An SV subforum in which the above-quoted rule were applied would leave the SVs with almost nothing to say and would thus be pointless. The rule would either need to be changed or suspended for that sub-forum.  To suspend it in one sub-forum would undermine and weaken it throughout the forum.  To change this rule would be to change the nature of Fish Eaters forum and the role it plays in the world.

There are forums, like CAF, in which the predominant view is that one must choose loyalty to the Pope over Catholic tradition.  There are other forums, like CathInfo, in which the predominant view is that one must choose Catholic tradition over loyalty to the Pope.  However, Fish Eaters allows expression of the view that one need not choose.  Loyalty to the Pope is part of Catholic tradition and the two ideas are entwined.  I consider this to be one of the greatest contributions that FE has made to me personally and one of the greatest contributions that it makes to the Church and to the world.

I see no way to add an SV sub-forum to Fish Eaters that would not harm this crucial aspect of the forum.

Long story short:  Sedevacantism is theologically possible (past Popes, Doctors and canonists can be quoted to give force to this opinion), but we must, as per the rules of the forum, pretend as though the Holy Father is impeccable in matters relating to faith.  It's possible that he can sin against the faith, but we simply cannot talk about it, because that would be disrespectful (even if it were in fact true).

"Respect" now refers to something other than that which is (or may be) true.

P.S. — Why should we not give obviously heretical priests and nuns the benefit of the doubt, who, like the Holy Father, are also our superiors?  What principle is at play here?

Parmandur Wrote:Since Benedict XVI is, factually speaking, the Pope, then sedevacantists are indeed wrong about him not being the Pope.

It seems to me that you assume that which is to be proven.  Yes, Pope Benedict is recognized as the Bishop of Rome, but more is required for him to be the Pope in fact (i.e. the profession of the Catholic Faith).
(01-23-2013, 11:31 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me that you assume that which is to be proven.  Yes, Pope Benedict is recognized as the Bishop of Rome, but more is required for him to be the Pope in fact (i.e. the profession of the Catholic Faith).

This shows the problem. An SV sub-forum means a place where people will consider the fact that Pope Benedict is the pope is something to be proven and yet will never accept the proofs.  How could this be a good thing?
(01-23-2013, 11:41 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 11:31 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me that you assume that which is to be proven.  Yes, Pope Benedict is recognized as the Bishop of Rome, but more is required for him to be the Pope in fact (i.e. the profession of the Catholic Faith).

This shows the problem. An SV sub-forum means a place where people will consider the fact that Pope Benedict is the pope is something to be proven and yet will never accept the proofs.  How could this be a good thing?

Why would some people never accept the proofs?  Is it because they are of bad will, or perhaps because the proofs are lacking in strength of argument?  And what of people who, when presented with damning evidence against the Supreme Pontiff, reply with, "Oh, it's too complicated for us to understand.  You must be interpreting document X incorrectly"?  That seems to go against the idea that we can objectively know the Faith and likewise recognize error.

One immediate rebuttal will be, "But the Holy Father is infinitely more intelligent than we are.  You are not qualified to criticize him."  What then when I refer to other men who are of his intellectual capacity and who vehemently disagree with him?  How shall their arguments be treated?

I likewise envision a second rebuttal to be, "But doctrine has developed, and we need to give the Magisterium time to work out the kinks in the admittedly novel points of doctrine which have appeared since 1964."  It's the Magisterium's task to teach clearly the truths revealed by God, and yet it has utterly failed in this regard for the last 50 years.  Besides that, there's nothing wrong with applying logic and known doctrines to the novelties to see if they are truly in continuity with what was taught in the past.  I think we're obliged to do this in order preserve our faith, for which we are personally responsible.
I have zero heart for sedes.

You may as well create a prot subforum.

No difference in my eyes.
(01-23-2013, 11:08 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Even if sedevacantism were a legitimate theological opinion that was worthy of discussion, it would not be practical to do so on Fish Eaters.  Consider that the forum rules contain the following: When speaking about the current Holy Father or any previous Pope,he will be spoken of respectfully. He may be referred to using his proper titles, e.g., The Holy Father, or his Papal name, e.g., in the case of the current Pontiff, Benedict XVI or Benedict.

Any criticism of Papal actions must be done respectfully with due consideration given both to the person and office of the Pope, remembering that he is the Vicar of Christ and holds the Keys. This means referring to him as an heretic, accusing him of heresy, etc. is not allowed on this forum. Sarcastic or vitriolic comments, or anything not worthy of the dignity of the Papacy is not allowed. He should always be given the benefit of the doubt for his actions, as far as reason allows, out of respect for the Throne of Peter and the Magisterium.


The SV position is based on claiming that recent popes are heretics.  In order to justify their position they are constantly needing to interpret papal actions in the worst possible light, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt.  Even assuming that there is a respectful way in which to call someone a heretic and anti-pope, these people, in most cases, would not be inclined to use it. An SV subforum in which the above-quoted rule were applied would leave the SVs with almost nothing to say and would thus be pointless. The rule would either need to be changed or suspended for that sub-forum.  To suspend it in one sub-forum would undermine and weaken it throughout the forum.  To change this rule would be to change the nature of Fish Eaters forum and the role it plays in the world.

There are forums, like CAF, in which the predominant view is that one must choose loyalty to the Pope over Catholic tradition.  There are other forums, like CathInfo, in which the predominant view is that one must choose Catholic tradition over loyalty to the Pope.  However, Fish Eaters allows expression of the view that one need not choose.  Loyalty to the Pope is part of Catholic tradition and the two ideas are entwined.  I consider this to be one of the greatest contributions that FE has made to me personally and one of the greatest contributions that it makes to the Church and to the world.

I see no way to add an SV sub-forum to Fish Eaters that would not harm this crucial aspect of the forum.
Hit the nail squarely on the head.
(01-23-2013, 11:53 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 11:41 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 11:31 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me that you assume that which is to be proven.  Yes, Pope Benedict is recognized as the Bishop of Rome, but more is required for him to be the Pope in fact (i.e. the profession of the Catholic Faith).

This shows the problem. An SV sub-forum means a place where people will consider the fact that Pope Benedict is the pope is something to be proven and yet will never accept the proofs.  How could this be a good thing?

Why would some people never accept the proofs?  Is it because they are of bad will, or perhaps because the proofs are lacking in strength of argument?  And what of people who, when presented with damning evidence against the Supreme Pontiff, reply with, "Oh, it's too complicated for us to understand.  You must be interpreting document X incorrectly"?  That seems to go against the idea that we can objectively know the Faith and likewise recognize error.

One immediate rebuttal will be, "But the Holy Father is infinitely more intelligent than we are.  You are not qualified to criticize him."  What then when I refer to other men who are of his intellectual capacity and who vehemently disagree with him?  How shall their arguments be treated?

We could have an argument in which both sides find quotes from "experts" to support their views, but since almost nobody here is an expert, everyone will accept the quotes that support what they already believe.  The truth is that relatively few people here are qualified to understand the finer points of theology.  Our ability to objectively know the Faith and recognize error is, for most of us, at the level of knowing the Creed. If there were popes denying the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection, we could discuss it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35