Is it a good idea to bring back the sede debate sub-forum (i.e., a sub-forum dedicated to debate as to whether we have a Pope or not)? If so, what restrictions, if any, and what rules should be in place so the sede type debates don't spread throughout the entire forum as they did before? If you're not a sede, should sedevacantism not be ignored and swept under the rug, but dealt with head-on? Do you think open debate should be had so that what you see as the Truth can be ascertained and defended "in open court," as it were, with the understanding that Truth has nothing to fear?
Or is it a bad idea? If so, do you see this as so because of practical reasons or because you see it as a danger to souls or --- ? If you see it as a danger to souls, why?
If it were to be brought back, what sorts of things would you see as evidence that it is an experiment that has failed and, so, that the sub-forum should be removed again?
Personally I don't think debate would help much. Debates especially on this topic breaks down rapidly into personal squabbles. After awhile the amount of useful information shared deteriorates into minucia of personal preferences.
What I would prefer to see is the best formulated sede vacante progression simply recorded on the website and then the best formulated contra sede vacante argument with it. Then both sides have access to the the best information supplied by the opposing viewpoint. We could say "keep content of arguments to promulgated Church Law and approved commentaries on the law".
You could open up a forum to comment on the posted progressions, if you dare us to keep the peace
01-21-2013, 11:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-21-2013, 11:15 PM by Historian.)
The topic itself is probably valid for Catholics. The question is whether the person claimed to be the Bishop of Rome is in fact the Bishop of Rome. There are many reasons for this question to be "no". One is an anti-pope, a false claimant, and heresy perhaps. Situations like the Great Schism, where there were two popes, are good examples of when people are not bound to accept the Pope in fact.
However, the central matter here is not whether there are two claimants, or that the Pope is dead, or that there is an impostor, but whether the Bishop of Rome is a heretic, and the basis for these accusations are imprudent for "debate".
That is what the the "debate" is about, and I do not think it is fitting, and I think those that hold it do so because of human weakness. It is easy for them to say that the failures of the various Popes in history to be not a matter of heresy, but I think if they lived then, they would have been far more scandalized.
Now, what I wrote here would probably be the subject of "debate" and could be done rationally, however, I do not think this subject is fit for debate for Catholics as the Seat of Rome is quite visibly and uncontroversially filled. If there is cause for people to doubt who the Pope is now, then what doubts one could have about history, where records are often without details.
Also, the Sedevacantist idea does not usually extent to one Pope, but a series of Popes, and includes an entire liturgical rite, and it attacks the foundation of the Church.
I voted no.
Is sedevacantism traditional ? Is it something laity played a part in during the Church's history ?
I think it would turn away more first time guests and lurkers than it would attract. jmo
No, any more than we should discuss whether Protestantism is just as good as Catholicism.
I emphatically vote no. There is not a person on this forum who actually has the authority to determine that definitively. There are only two possibilities for that. First, a future Pope determines that it happened , and second, that a general council of the Church that is comprised of the world's bishops determines that a sitting Pope has forfeited his office. End of list. Neither of those things have happened.
It's your call to decide whether or not to allow this to be discussed, but you do so at your own peril. Out of charity, I warn you that you may be held accountable before God for the souls led astray as a result.
Sedevacantism isn't just a little boo-boo. It is an outright rejection of the heirarchy of the entire Church, from the Holy Father all they way down to most parish priests.
Yes, we had sede threads in the cornfield without burning down the place.
Also, the ridiculousness of people labelling sedes as Protestants but then themselves accusing the Pope of heresy and living as if there was no Pope needs to be pointed out.
I would recommend, that if this question is to be discussed, that the forum in which it takes place is not publicly visible.
The danger is that public discussion is public and ready by anyone. Many have contacted me about what I have written, and those people have never posted. The people who post and respond are not the main audience.
If Bob and Alice are in a debate, Bob and Alice will almost certainly not change their minds, but those reading in silence may very well change minds to choose a side.
Considering that this is a serious matter concerning the Church, the main issue is not that people will reject the fact of the Bishop of Rome, but that people will use this question as a doubt for the entire Church, a situation which I am surprised does not affect most Sedevacantists considering they usually reject four Popes in a row, and doubt the validity of some Sacraments.
This question is one which requires information and critical thinking, yet, it is clear that people are willing to undertake this question, without any greater attention to the morals and doctrines of the Church. That, conversion and reform of our lives, is what is key and what is most often ignored.
(01-21-2013, 01:06 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Also, the ridiculousness of people labelling sedes as Protestants but then themselves accusing the Pope of heresy and living as if there was no Pope needs to be pointed out.
And is. Repeatedly.
As is the ridiculousness of the NO, CITH, EEMs, etc.
Some days I'm not sure which is more ridiculous, but most days I'm sure it's the latter.
As to sedevacantist debate, I don't have the same fear of it that other people here do, I guess. I'm still not sure it's particularly useful, and I know it can get crazy. I'm guessing that considering this possibility has something to do with the fact that SSPX contra mundum
debates have calmed down here, for the moment, due to a couple of bans and a good bit of emigration.
I really think calling them on the level of Protestants is uncalled for, at least as much as calling those who attend the NO Protestants is uncalled for. Neither group means to be Protestants, though both can be argued to be adopting certain aspects of Protestantism.
Also, what Rosarium said deserves consideration. Sedevacantism, true or not, does seem to have a tendency to scandalize.
I did not vote.
I voted no, but have been moved a little reading here. I am worried about the peekers, who not strong in their Faith will be unduly affected. The other is those espousing their not being sede, but in practicality are schismatics in their treatment of every issue.