Sede Vacante Thread

Is the Chair of St. Peter Vacant?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 25 36.2%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 10 14.5%
  • Not Catholic

    Votes: 11 15.9%

  • Total voters
    69

Pioneer

Sparrow
This one
If you look at my message, you’ll see that I already said I’m not in the SSPX
My point was that you claim that the SSPX does a great job refuting sedevacantism—how can you say that, when you reject the whole entire premise of the SSPX’s “refutation” of sedevacantism, which is that Vatican II contained errors and must be rejected, along with the New Mass, as evil and non-Catholic?

Both the SSPX and sedevacantists agree that officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil. What we disagree about is whether or not the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church. Sedevacantists say that it is impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church, because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil. The SSPX’s entire argument against sedevacantism is that it is possible.
 

SilentCal

Sparrow
This one

My point was that you claim that the SSPX does a great job refuting sedevacantism—how can you say that, when you reject the whole entire premise of the SSPX’s “refutation” of sedevacantism, which is that Vatican II contained errors and must be rejected, along with the New Mass, as evil and non-Catholic?

Both the SSPX and sedevacantists agree that officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil. What we disagree about is whether or not the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church. Sedevacantists say that it is impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church, because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil. The SSPX’s entire argument against sedevacantism is that it is possible.
You can demonstrate the coherence of an argument without accepting any of its premises. That’s why a mathematical proof starts out with “Let X equal such and such.” Have you ever studied logic?

Getting you to accept other premises would be another task, requiring other arguments. I was only trying to show that even the SSPX, another group with a radical view (that I disagree with) of the Council, a view which is your premise, dies not accept your conclusions.
 

Sinabelus

Sparrow
This one

My point was that you claim that the SSPX does a great job refuting sedevacantism—how can you say that, when you reject the whole entire premise of the SSPX’s “refutation” of sedevacantism, which is that Vatican II contained errors and must be rejected, along with the New Mass, as evil and non-Catholic?

Both the SSPX and sedevacantists agree that officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil. What we disagree about is whether or not the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church. Sedevacantists say that it is impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church, because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil. The SSPX’s entire argument against sedevacantism is that it is possible.
Does the SSPX actually deny infallibility in that case?
 

mr_mike_

Chicken
Benedict is still Pope

Can. 188 A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
Always remember:

The only reason "Recognize-and-Resist" semi-traditionalists can be so generous in their acceptance of Francis as a definitely-valid Pope is because they don't submit to him.

Otherwise they would be sedevacantists in a heartbeat.

You can believe in the Papacy or you can believe Francis is Pope. You can't do both.

After thinking about related topics for some time, I am increasingly sympathetic to what you say here. I think your last sentence is basically correct.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
I’m not in SSPX myself, but it looks like they do a great job of refuting sedevacantism:


Responses:

Do the sedevacantists agree amongst themselves?
No, far from it. There are many different positions....
OK. Who cares?

What is meant by being pope materialiter?

The main difficulty of sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible manner (for she has received from the Lord the promise that she will endure until the end of the world) while being deprived of her head.
Just because something causes you difficulty doesn't mean it isn't true. We are supposed to value true faith over practicality. My understanding is that SSPXers believe that a heretic Pope would never invoke infallibility on a heretical doctrine because some miracle would occur to stop it from happening. OK, then why can't sedes say the same thing? Some miracle will come from heaven such that an antipope is exposed correctly and the seat of Peter becomes filled once again. It's quite conceivable.

But isn’t it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate?

St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who would formally and manifestly become a heretic would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II...
LOL John Paul II. What a different world it was when this article was written!

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.
In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.
No, this is completely wrong.

First of all the analogy doesn't make sense. How can the head of the body be at war with the members of the body? How is that even "unity in one body"? Is it possible for your arm and your leg to fight against your head? No! the head is what controls the members! That sounds more like "disunity in multiple bodies" to me.

Second of all, the writing makes it sound as if the pope is just some secretary who operates Vatican Incorporated and his job is to handle the logistics of the church organization. No, this is not how catholics understand the office of the papacy whatsoever. The Pope is a global spiritual father to the entire community of latin catholics. The original analogy was correct; a head cannot operate without a soul, and a pope cannot operate without a true faith.

The problem with traditional catholics can be summarized in this tension: you have the pope, and you have the apostolic faith. Which one is supreme? Is the pope superior to the apostolic faith, or is the latter superior to the pope? What do we do when these two forces contradict one another?

Novus Ordoites: completely obedient to the pope, but not the faith.
SSPX: pretend to be obedient to the pope (even though they are not), loyal to their understanding of the faith.
Sedes: disbodient to the pope insofar as he violates the faith.

Among these groups, I feel like Novus Ordoites and Sedes are actually the most intellectually honest. If you really believe that Francis is the inheritor of the medieval era power of the pope then you basically have to concede that the Novus Ordoites are actually the real Catholics and you yourself are the one in schism.
 
Last edited:

SilentCal

Sparrow
Among these groups, I feel like Novus Ordoites and Sedes are actually the most intellectually honest. If you really believe that Francis is the inheritor of the medieval era power of the pope then you basically have to concede that the Novus Ordoites are actually the real Catholics and you yourself are the one in schism.
Looks like you’ve changed your tune a bit since you started this thread: https://www.rooshvforum.com/threads...-really-the-church-of-the-romans.40068/page-2

Why not just come out and say what you are instead of calling yourself a “Latin Catholic”? Why is your profile hidden? You sedes are sneaky buggers. By the way, might I suggest that you figure out a way to be more concise with your deboonks.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
Looks like you’ve changed your tune a bit since you started this thread: https://www.rooshvforum.com/threads...-really-the-church-of-the-romans.40068/page-2

Why not just come out and say what you are instead of calling yourself a “Latin Catholic”? Why is your profile hidden? You sedes are sneaky buggers. By the way, might I suggest that you figure out a way to be more concise with your deboonks.

You can't respond to any of my points so you have to attack my character instead. So pathetic. True faith has no fear of inquiry; and faith without doubt has not been tested.
 

SilentCal

Sparrow
You can't respond to any of my points so you have to attack my character instead. So pathetic. True faith has no fear of inquiry; and faith without doubt has not been tested.
How am I supposed to respond to you when I have no idea what you really think? You’re not committing yourself publicly to a position with regard to sedevacantism. Are you a sede or no?

I have nothing to say to your points because I have no interest in defending the SSPX. If you can bring yourself to say what you believe, and to call normal Catholics something other that “Novus Ordoites”, then maybe a real discussion could begin.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
If you can bring yourself to say what you believe, and to call normal Catholics something other that “Novus Ordoites”, then maybe a real discussion could begin.

I didn't follow closely your discussion with nagareboshi, but I notice that this part of your argument is wrong.
Are Novus Ordo Catholics the most important group numerically ? Obviously. Does this mean they are "normal" in the sense of normative ? No, unless you assume some form of "majority rule" decides truth in matters of religion.
Normies aren't normal, at least to me.
 

SilentCal

Sparrow
I didn't follow closely your discussion with nagareboshi, but I notice that this part of your argument is wrong.
Are Novus Ordo Catholics the most important group numerically ? Obviously. Does this mean they are "normal" in the sense of normative ? No, unless you assume some form of "majority rule" decides truth in matters of religion.
Normies aren't normal, at least to me.
What does decide truth in matters of religion to you? I agree that it’s not majority rule, but it’s not just most, but virtually all Catholics who see the Novus Ordo as a valid Mass, and think Pope Francis is the pope. For nearly all Catholics worldwide to make such a serious mistake would be a failure of the sensus fidelium. Seems impossible to me.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
How am I supposed to respond to you when I have no idea what you really think? You’re not committing yourself publicly to a position with regard to sedevacantism. Are you a sede or no?

Are we just trying to push factionalism on each other, or are we trying to have real arguments? When someone asks questions in an attempt to learn about the world, you don't ask them to commit to a position until the context has been made clear.

I am not making a strong attack in favor of sedevacantism. Not because I am trying to be sneaky, but because I'm genuinely still undecided as to what the truly Catholic position is supposed to be here. If I have to come and "identify myself" with a faction, then I would generally say that I'm a traditionalist, and I desire to follow the faith of the apostles.

I have nothing to say to your points because I have no interest in defending the SSPX. If you can bring yourself to say what you believe, and to call normal Catholics something other that “Novus Ordoites”, then maybe a real discussion could begin.

You posted the SSPX article because it was obviously consistent with what you believed. Responding to counter-arguments isn't something you do because you blindly feel an affiliation to SSPX or FSSP or SSPV or anything else; it's what you do for the sake of knowing the truth.

For nearly all Catholics worldwide to make such a serious mistake would be a failure of the sensus fidelium. Seems impossible to me.

But most Catholics are also in favor of gay marriage, don't attend Mass weekly, don't go to Confession, don't believe in real presence ... seems like they're already de facto in a different religion.
 
Last edited:

SilentCal

Sparrow
I am not making a strong attack in favor of sedevacantism. Not because I am trying to be sneaky, but because I'm genuinely still undecided as to what the truly Catholic position is supposed to be here.
But most Catholics are also in favor of gay marriage, don't attend Mass weekly, don't go to Confession, don't believe in real presence ... seems like they're already de facto in a different religion.
Come on, bro. Do you honestly expect me to believe you’re undecided? You’re obviously not Switzerland on this issue, especially when you’re asking such bizarre questions as whether the modern Catholic Church is actually the “Church of the Franks”.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
it’s not just most, but virtually all Catholics who see the Novus Ordo as a valid Mass, and think Pope Francis is the pope. For nearly all Catholics worldwide to make such a serious mistake would be a failure of the sensus fidelium. Seems impossible to me.
The "majority rule" idea is not all that bad, it just needs to be refined a little bit.

Novus Ordo Catholics use the majority rule but favor space over time - like you, they argue about a "spatial majority" now. But now is only a very small part of 20 centuries of history. Many traditional Catholics favor time over space - they are good at finding support in the past, but somewhat fail to explain the situation now.
So what you get is a stalemate - time gives you a different answer than space.
You have to use other methods to get at the bottom of things.
What does decide truth in matters of religion to you?
I know of no short answer.

There are so many issues to consider : the rule of faith , ecclesiastical tradition, the function of Scripture, the gradition of opinions from divinely revealed to heretical, the levels of certainty, etc.

Shortest summary I know of is Book I of Wilhelm & Scannell's manual of Catholic theology.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
Come on, bro. Do you honestly expect me to believe you’re undecided?

I am a traditionalist Catholic. As I wrote previously:

The problem with traditional catholics can be summarized in this tension: you have the pope, and you have the apostolic faith. Which one is supreme? Is the pope superior to the apostolic faith, or is the latter superior to the pope? What do we do when these two forces contradict one another?

There's many strategies people can use to overcome these problems:
  • Francis isn't a heretic, it's actually the media that misrepresents him!
  • Francis isn't the pope, actually
  • Francis is the pope, but he is allowed to make mistakes 90% of the time
  • Francis is truly the pope, and modernist Catholicism is the true faith
  • The Holy Spirit protects the pope from making errors, so he will always be consistent with the true faith
Is it really so easy to make a decision from all of these? I see that your position is basically "pro-V2 as long as no heresy occurs" to which I'm sympathetic, but the argument seems to disagree with "you shall know them by their fruits."
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
Come on, bro. Do you honestly expect me to believe you’re undecided? You’re obviously not Switzerland on this issue, especially when you’re asking such bizarre questions as whether the modern Catholic Church is actually the “Church of the Franks”.

You are incredibly critical of Sede Vacante theology, but at the same time very charitable with other Schisms (ie. EO) as I have seen in other threads. I am not quite sure how you reconcile this, given that Sede Vs have a much higher number of councils and dogmas (perhaps all) are in alignment. Feels like you deride Sedes hard but at the same time embrace your EO cousins. To me this isn't consistent.

The 'confusion' of Vatican 2 puts us in this situation. I count myself with @nagareboshi as someone who does not attend Novus Ordo, and at the same time is left wanting with some of the various theological positions related to Vatican 2 of these excellent latin mass apostolates (eg FSSP, SSPX).
 

SilentCal

Sparrow
Is it really so easy to make a decision from all of these?
Please just drop this “honest inquirer” act. Your “options” really boil down to:

1) “Sedevacantism is true”, and

2) “Novus Ordoite Modernist Catholicism, which is obviously wrong.”

I can only watch you pretend to be undecided for so long. “Gee, it sure seems like VII is heretical, and gosh it sure seems like the seat is vacant. Wow, sure seems like the Catholic Church as it exists today is actually... the Church of the Franks!” Give me a break.
 

SilentCal

Sparrow
You are incredibly critical of Sede Vacante theology, but at the same time very charitable with other Schisms (ie. EO) as I have seen in other threads.
Are you referring to @nagareboshi ’s position as “Sede Vacante theology”? If you are, you’re making my point for me. He’s pretending not to be a sede, but he sounds and acts like one.

He’s not trying to pick between SSPX and FSSP like you are. He just issued a page of arguments against the SSPX a few posts ago.
 
Last edited:

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
If you are, you’re making my point for me. He’s pretending not to be a sede, but he sounds and acts like one.

Yawn, this discourse is very unproductive. It's really nice to hear that you have the ability to gaze into the hearts of men and to predict exactly what they believe. It's a shame that you don't use this prophetic ability of yours to actually answer the question which is being asked.

1624297244300.png

I can only watch you pretend to be undecided for so long.

Buddy, have you considered talking to people and engaging in conversation with them rather than trying to cast judgments on their character? Not only are you not listening to any of the words I am saying, but you are even misrepresenting them.

Since character and internet archaeology is so important to you, have you reflected on your own? Earlier, you were making such lofty "logical" claims as these:

You can demonstrate the coherence of an argument without accepting any of its premises. That’s why a mathematical proof starts out with “Let X equal such and such.” Have you ever studied logic?

Clearly, you are the one who does not care about logic. We easily could have discussed some of these arguments without accepting the premises, as you yourself said, but you would not talk, obviously because you have no defense against any of these. You have demonstrated that you are a factionalist who cares more about which party someone is representing than the words they are discussing. That is perfectly fine. I hope one day you will be given the gift to think about your own answers to these questions in this precarious and slippery modern age which has ensnared so many brothers and cast them into hell.
 
Last edited:
Top