FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: 3 Sede Positions
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I posted this in the other subtopic about but it got like 5 views in a day so I thought I'd post it in one that gets more traffic.


So I was in a convo with a friend today who is a sedeprivation, which I never heard of. He informed me that there are three positions.

Sedevacamtism is of course the belief that the Chair of Peter is empty and the visible church is an imposter.

Sedeprivationism is the belief that the chair of Peter is occupied by the current Pope, but in a sense "illegally". It is basically saying he occupies it materially but not formally. However, if he were to renounce modernism and condemn it he would complete the process.

Sedimpeditism is the belief that Cardinal Siri is the true Pope.

Anyone know about this? If this is true the second position seems to be more plausible then sedevacantist position.

Thought?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here are my thoughts:

If God is this legalistic with regard to the "validity" of a pope, then it is all immaterial since no one stands a chance of being saved anyway.
(02-16-2016, 10:30 AM)ermy_law Wrote: [ -> ]Here are my thoughts:

If God is this legalistic with regard to the "validity" of a pope, then it is all immaterial since no one stands a chance of being saved anyway.
When you phrase it that way, what supposedly sane person would ever disagree with you?  Eye-roll
(02-16-2016, 03:35 PM)richgr Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2016, 10:30 AM)ermy_law Wrote: [ -> ]Here are my thoughts:

If God is this legalistic with regard to the "validity" of a pope, then it is all immaterial since no one stands a chance of being saved anyway.
When you phrase it that way, what supposedly sane person would ever disagree with you?  Eye-roll

No sane person would disagree with me. 

Of course, I recognize that dozens of people disagree with me.  As for those dozens, well...

(02-16-2016, 04:10 PM)ermy_law Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2016, 03:35 PM)richgr Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2016, 10:30 AM)ermy_law Wrote: [ -> ]Here are my thoughts:

If God is this legalistic with regard to the "validity" of a pope, then it is all immaterial since no one stands a chance of being saved anyway.
When you phrase it that way, what supposedly sane person would ever disagree with you?  Eye-roll

No sane person would disagree with me. 

Of course, I recognize that dozens of people disagree with me.  As for those dozens, well...

I wouldn't call that insane to disagree with you. I'm not a Sede of any sort but I think we should be carful when it comes to using that argument "don't be too legalistic". There has to be a better one. Just throwing some speculation about how legalistic God is, isn't a great argument. I agree that we shouldn't be to legalistic but a degree of legalism is good.... It maintains an order and structure.

Also I think the point of the second position is in a legal and material sense (I know I said "illegal", poor choice of wording) the Pope does occupy the throne, but it's arguing that from a spiritual position it is lacking. It seems to me the second position still recognizes the visible Church as the true Church but it views it as having been to a degree corrupted and infiltrated. Idk it makes sense to me. But I'm not one to just jump to some conclusion for a petty reason as that, so I posted here to see if someone has some insight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You asked for people's thoughts... I gave you mine.

Perhaps God is legalistic, but there is no basis in Church history to suppose that he is legalistic in the way claimed by the sedevacantists. As you say, whatever legalism that God has is to serve the ends of order and structure. The legalism proposed by the sedevacantists does not tend toward order and structure -- it tends toward chaos and private judgment.

My further thoughts contra their legalism are as follows: there is not a time in Church history where the Church held that a bishop was ipso facto no longer the ruler of his diocese as a result of his errors or heresies.  In all cases, such a bishop was tried by some authoritative ecclesial body and deposed.  Since the sedevacantist argument relies on the premise that one cannot be a non-Catholic and hold an ecclesial office, it does not appear to be congruent with history.  There is no reason the pope is different than any other bishop.  And that is demonstrated by the fact that a council was called and the limits of papal infallibility were strictly defined.

It is a logical house of cards built on false logical premises and an erroneous view of history.  As such, the entire theory is ridiculous and does not justify discussion.  I understand how these sorts of internally consistent logical systems can dupe people -- Calvin, a lawyer, did the same thing.

As for the semi-sedevacantist positions you mentioned, my thought is: who cares?  Why does the situation of the pope matter?  Why do these people make it an article of faith who is or is not the pope?  And not only that, they seemingly make it their only article of faith, since it's all they ever talk about.  Perhaps if we ever discovered a sede who wasn't shoving his sede arguments down everyone's throat at every opportunity, my thoughts would be different.  A cursory examination of the internet, though, indicates that that is an impossibility for these people, which is one reason why I label them as not "sane."
(02-16-2016, 05:30 PM)ermy_law Wrote: [ -> ]As for the semi-sedevacantist positions you mentioned, my thought is: who cares?  Why does the situation of the pope matter? 

I care. I care that the words coming out of his mouth troubles me, and not because they're challenging me to grow, which would be a good thing. I care because I grow weary of defending myself for traditional practices and beliefs when the public face of Catholicism says, "Who am I to judge?" I care because the dischord between what the Church teaches and what she is, is soul-crushing at times.

I care because I see the nodding heads when something heretical is preached and that troubles me. I care because I see the lack of men in the pews. I care because no matter how bad we think things are right now, they will only get worse.

The situation matters for many because we are seeking leadership. And leadership is solely lacking. We wrestle with what that means.

(02-16-2016, 05:30 PM)ermy_law Wrote: [ -> ]Why do these people make it an article of faith who is or is not the pope?  And not only that, they seemingly make it their only article of faith, since it's all they ever talk about.

Because it identifies who they are? What's the primary difference between a Sede and just a plain old Trad? One could argue attitude, I suppose, but otherwise it's the only defining characteristic at times.

(02-16-2016, 06:53 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2016, 05:30 PM)ermy_law Wrote: [ -> ]As for the semi-sedevacantist positions you mentioned, my thought is: who cares?  Why does the situation of the pope matter? 

I care. I care that the words coming out of his mouth troubles me, and not because they're challenging me to grow, which would be a good thing. I care because I grow weary of defending myself for traditional practices and beliefs when the public face of Catholicism says, "Who am I to judge?" I care because the dischord between what the Church teaches and what she is, is soul-crushing at times.

I care because I see the nodding heads when something heretical is preached and that troubles me. I care because I see the lack of men in the pews. I care because no matter how bad we think things are right now, they will only get worse.

The situation matters for many because we are seeking leadership. And leadership is solely lacking. We wrestle with what that means.

(02-16-2016, 05:30 PM)ermy_law Wrote: [ -> ]Why do these people make it an article of faith who is or is not the pope?  And not only that, they seemingly make it their only article of faith, since it's all they ever talk about.

Because it identifies who they are? What's the primary difference between a Sede and just a plain old Trad? One could argue attitude, I suppose, but otherwise it's the only defining characteristic at times.

You really summed up how I feel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
PrairieMom, I disagree with this idea of wrestling over what it all means. The pope says a lot of things that are wrong, silly, ludicrous, stupid, and unjustifiable. There's nothing to wrestle over. People can be wrong and all the rest, whether they be pope or anyone else.

The way to deal with that is to point it out, keep the faith, and see about your duty of state. We know what the Church teaches whether the pope happens to be making that clear or not. Clerics have been getting things wrong since St. Peter -- it's not something to wrestle over. The pope is often wrong -- correct him for others, spread the truth, and move on.

There's no need to invent a logical position that makes him not the pope to deal with this issue.
(02-16-2016, 05:30 PM)ermy_law Wrote: [ -> ]You asked for people's thoughts... I gave you mine.

Perhaps God is legalistic, but there is no basis in Church history to suppose that he is legalistic in the way claimed by the sedevacantists. As you say, whatever legalism that God has is to serve the ends of order and structure. The legalism proposed by the sedevacantists does not tend toward order and structure -- it tends toward chaos and private judgment.

My further thoughts contra their legalism are as follows: there is not a time in Church history where the Church held that a bishop was ipso facto no longer the ruler of his diocese as a result of his errors or heresies.  In all cases, such a bishop was tried by some authoritative ecclesial body and deposed.  Since the sedevacantist argument relies on the premise that one cannot be a non-Catholic and hold an ecclesial office, it does not appear to be congruent with history.  There is no reason the pope is different than any other bishop.  And that is demonstrated by the fact that a council was called and the limits of papal infallibility were strictly defined.

It is a logical house of cards built on false logical premises and an erroneous view of history.  As such, the entire theory is ridiculous and does not justify discussion.  I understand how these sorts of internally consistent logical systems can dupe people -- Calvin, a lawyer, did the same thing.

As for the semi-sedevacantist positions you mentioned, my thought is: who cares?  Why does the situation of the pope matter?  Why do these people make it an article of faith who is or is not the pope?  And not only that, they seemingly make it their only article of faith, since it's all they ever talk about.  Perhaps if we ever discovered a sede who wasn't shoving his sede arguments down everyone's throat at every opportunity, my thoughts would be different.  A cursory examination of the internet, though, indicates that that is an impossibility for these people, which is one reason why I label them as not "sane."

The last paragraph really spoke to me. There's part of me that can tip my hat to certain sede groups like SGG and Father Cekada and the folks that run the Breviary.net website and thank them for giving us a more robust liturgical calendar to follow than the average 1962 Missal TLM group, but at heart these folks are still obsessed with the question of the person of the pope.

As I said, the sedevacantist is basically frozen in the leave it to beaver era, pining away for a Catholicism that only existed in one part of the universal Church, between the Papacies of Leo XIII and Pius XII. Anything before the Counter Reformation as read through the lens of the late 19th century through Pius XII, and as filtered through the cultural milleu of a parish in Midwestern America of the 1940's is simply out of the question as a style of Catholicism worthy of consideration. It's an ossified and distorted cult obsessed with the papacy and an outmoded style that fails to take into account that the Church is bigger than 1940's America and the parish life under Eugenio Paceli's  Church amongst Roman Rite Catholics.

I admit the arguments seem pretty logical and serious, but there is just something off about it. I tend to think the key to being at peace amidst the crisis is to take our focus off the person of the pope and the papacy. The near cultlike obsession with the pope is one of the most bizarre aspects of Roman Catholicism to those of us who do not share the Roman view of things, or find ourselves immersed in traditions within the Catholic Church that take a less robust view of the person of the pope. The obsession with who is or isn't the pope and everything he says or does just fuels things like sedevacantism.

I admit some of what I said here might not be fair, or might be a crude caricature, but I'm much better at painting broad brush strokes than careful analysis. I call things like I see them, and after spending a lot of time thinking about sedevacantism what I said above is exactly how I see things right or wrong.
Pages: 1 2 3