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
Funny.  Seems people from both sides think they've proven their point.

The conclusion to be drawn from that is either that we definitely need the subforum, or we definitely don't.  If we definitely don't, then we don't really even need any Catholic discussion since there's really not much to be had.  If the current state of discipline and teaching in the Church (which proceeds and is authorized by the pope) is fully Catholic, then the question is closed-- not just on SVism, but on the crisis, period.  There may be turmoil (when is there not) but there's definitely no crisis.  If, on the other hand, the current disciplines and teachings in the Church are NOT fully Catholic, the question is open, as IF a Churchman is teaching heresy, he is to be rightfully deposed.  There's a lot more intricacies to it than that, but the openness of the question is all we're dealing with now.

I DO think that if SV discussion is to be completely forbidden, that the site should make an amendment to the definition of Catholic to exclude sedevacantists.  
(01-30-2013, 04:37 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 04:34 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 04:26 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that a sedevacantist who only attends the old rites, and only follows the doctrines and teachings prior to VII-- the idea that such a person is not Catholic, but that a person who attends the NO and supports the conciliar documents that are used UNIVERSALLY to promote condemned errors such as ecumenism and religious liberty IS Catholic... well, that's just laughable.

The idea that a person who is not in communion with the Pope is not Catholic has been established for centuries.

So St Vincent Ferrer was not Catholic.

Thing is, he was of the opinion he was in communion with the Pope, and so was not culpable.  He later changed allegiance to the true Pope, when he discerned the error.  The problem is, for the SV, where is the Pope?  They have not mistakenly given allegiance to an anti-Pope, as Saint Vincent did, but have forsworn allegiance to the only Pope around.  There is no anti-Pope confusion to fall back upon; everyone knows who the Pope is today.
(01-30-2013, 04:48 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Funny.  Seems people from both sides think they've proven their point.

The conclusion to be drawn from that is either that we definitely need the subforum, or we definitely don't.  If we definitely don't, then we don't really even need any Catholic discussion since there's really not much to be had.  If the current state of discipline and teaching in the Church (which proceeds and is authorized by the pope) is fully Catholic, then the question is closed-- not just on SVism, but on the crisis, period.  There may be turmoil (when is there not) but there's definitely no crisis.  If, on the other hand, the current disciplines and teachings in the Church are NOT fully Catholic, the question is open, as IF a Churchman is teaching heresy, he is to be rightfully deposed.  There's a lot more intricacies to it than that, but the openness of the question is all we're dealing with now.

The Catholicism of people who are not in communion with the Pope is in question.  That is a basic point of Catholic theology.  The state of discipline and teaching in the Church has no bearing on that.  Clearly there are serious problems in the Church which we can recognize and discuss while also accepting the traditional understanding of the importance of communion with the Pope.
(01-30-2013, 04:48 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Funny.  Seems people from both sides think they've proven their point.

The conclusion to be drawn from that is either that we definitely need the subforum, or we definitely don't.  If we definitely don't, then we don't really even need any Catholic discussion since there's really not much to be had.  If the current state of discipline and teaching in the Church (which proceeds and is authorized by the pope) is fully Catholic, then the question is closed-- not just on SVism, but on the crisis, period.  There may be turmoil (when is there not) but there's definitely no crisis.  If, on the other hand, the current disciplines and teachings in the Church are NOT fully Catholic, the question is open, as IF a Churchman is teaching heresy, he is to be rightfully deposed.  There's a lot more intricacies to it than that, but the openness of the question is all we're dealing with now...

You are implying that without Sedes, there is no crisis. That without Sedevacatism, there is no need for Catholic discussion. It all boils down that? On one side there is the "new Church" and on the other, the SV movement.

How far away from His Church have we come to make these kinds of statements?


I'm coming into this late, and I don't rally have a strong opinion on the matter.  The Cornfield ones (which I keep forgetting about...), have been just as civil as the usual discussions here (maybe moreso! when the discussion is expected, it tends to be less emotionally provacative, I think). 

I will add a point I think is important and should be considered which ties into some of the posts above mine.

I don't know if this has been said before in this thread, but with regards to "sedevacantism" as it stands today, it's not just about the Pope, but the identity of the Catholic Church.  During the Great Western Schism, for example, everyone agreed on what visible society the Catholic Church was, some people just disagreed on which papal claimant had the right to govern it.

Sedevacantism is different. It's adherents argue that Vatican II created a new, non-Catholic sect, kind of like the non-Chalcedonians claimed about Chalcedon.  For example, Bishop Dolan says here:

"At the very beginning of the Vatican II changes, I thought to myself: “this can’t be the Catholic Church that is doing this.” I’ve always felt that way, since I was a seminarian. Our position is simply a logical outgrowth of that. If that isn’t the Catholic Church, and you are a Catholic, you can’t be worshipping there. That’s the long and short of it.
----------
"It’s a question of the Church. If you are a Catholic, you have your Mass — you may not have access to it right now, but you have your Mass and your Sacraments and you have everything, because you have the Church of Christ. If you don’t have the Church, as Augustine says, you can sing Alleluia, and you can read Scriptures, and you can give the Sacraments, but you don’t have Christ. You don’t have Christ in this new One World Church."

Or Bishop Sanborn says here, "this whole hierarchy has collapsed into heresy" or "the only continuity between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II is a continuity of administrative structures."

Sure, some sedevacantists claim the true Catholic Church is sprinkled in various places—within the sedevacantist communities and hierarchies, within the visible society most of the world thinks is the Catholic Church, and within groups who profess to be members of that visible society while remaining visibly separated (eg SSPX, independent groups, etc.). But this theory still boils down to the identity of the Catholic Church being disputed (not to mention violating the very ecclesiology they allege the Pope and most of the hierarchy violated, leading them to supposedly fall away from the Church in the first place).
NO, Sedevacantism should definitely NOT be allowed to be discussed anywhere on Fisheaters including the Cornfield. Furthermore, the site should amend its definition of what a Catholic is to NOT include Sedevacantists.

My reasoning for this is that it is apparent that the majority of people on this forum don’t believe that Sedevacantists are Catholic. The few Sedevacantists that actually post here are ridiculed, besmirched and attacked. They are called Protestant, non-Catholic, separated from the Church. They are called schismatics and heretics. They are compared to Atheists. They are told that they are instruments of the devil to put doubts in people and attack the Church. All of this is tolerated by the moderator.

Since it is very evident that Sedevacantists are not welcome here and this forum, in my view, is not equally moderated, (There is no way the lack of charity and name calling would be tolerated if directed at any other group) discussion on the topic should just be banned and Sedevacantists should be told to go elsewhere.

There are any number of other forums where Sedes can go and the issue can be discussed without all nastiness being directed at them. Cathinfo seems to be able to discuss the issue in a civil manner as well as the new forum, Suscipe Domine. It’s all in the moderation.

I do, however, very much like the idea of inviting more people from Catholic Answers over to Fisheaters! That's going to be great!
Pray for Mel Gibson
(01-30-2013, 06:48 PM)Thomas58 Wrote: [ -> ]NO, Sedevacantism should definitely NOT be allowed to be discussed anywhere on Fisheaters including the Cornfield. Furthermore, the site should amend its definition of what a Catholic is to NOT include Sedevacantists.

My reasoning for this is that it is apparent that the majority of people on this forum don’t believe that Sedevacantists are Catholic. The few Sedevacantists that actually post here are ridiculed, besmirched and attacked. They are called Protestant, non-Catholic, separated from the Church. They are called schismatics and heretics. They are compared to Atheists. They are told that they are instruments of the devil to put doubts in people and attack the Church. All of this is tolerated by the moderator.

Since it is very evident that Sedevacantists are not welcome here and this forum, in my view, is not equally moderated, (There is no way the lack of charity and name calling would be tolerated if directed at any other group) discussion on the topic should just be banned and Sedevacantists should be told to go elsewhere.

There are any number of other forums where Sedes can go and the issue can be discussed without all nastiness being directed at them. Cathinfo seems to be able to discuss the issue in a civil manner as well as the new forum, Suscipe Domine. It’s all in the moderation.

I do, however, very much like the idea of inviting more people from Catholic Answers over to Fisheaters! That's going to be great!
Here are a few places:
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1149
http://www.mothering.com/community/t/119...-out-there
http://www.mothering.com/community/t/119...-out-there
(01-30-2013, 06:52 PM)Whitey Wrote: [ -> ]Pray for Mel Gibson

Yes, exactly Whitey! Thank you for making my point.

Sedevacantists need to be prayed for. (Because they're not Catholic)

So if we're going to treat them as non-Catholics, change the defination of what a Catholic is on the website to NOT include Sedevacantists, and ban ALL discussion on the topic. Then you won't have to deal with it. Simple.
(01-30-2013, 07:11 PM)Thomas58 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2013, 06:52 PM)Whitey Wrote: [ -> ]Pray for Mel Gibson

Yes, exactly Whitey! Thank you for making my point.

Sedevacantists need to be prayed for. (Because they're not Catholic)

So if we're going to treat them as non-Catholics, change the defination of what a Catholic is on the website to NOT include Sedevacantists, and ban ALL discussion on the topic. Then you won't have to deal with it. Simple.

And be left alone with JP2 fans and sspx basing trads? No thanks
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