Looking at the definitions of other "isims", the cause of the belief is not usually stated, this is because the definitions are to define the "what" of the subject and not the "why".

But a high degree of importance of the “what”, is necessary to make an -ism of one’s ideological stance.  It has to play a central role.  ie “I trust ‘The Science’, therefore I am a Science-ist.”  Or “I believe in the People’s Liberation from their wealth and property, so I am a Liberation Theologist.”  With Sedevacantism, it seems to me that a lot of old time traditionalists accepted the possibility that JPII or BXVI were not valid, but didn’t take a hard stance on the issue, and did not earn the title of sedevacantist.  Those who made an issue out of it, did.

There is someone occupying the position in DC and Rome but they are rejecting Jesus.  They  worship Satan.  We can always pray for their return to God. 


Therefore, I can’t follow anyone who rejects our Lord and Savior unless they repent of their sins and return to God.

I too asked the question regarding being able to prove that the term "sedevacantist" has been used (by the Church) to describe Catholics during interregnums, but 2Vermont didn't want to respond to the question. That's probably because it's not true. Catholics, to my knowledge, have never been referred to as sedevacantists during an interregnum. Catholics do not suddenly have the qualifier of 'sedevacantist Catholic' just because there's a period of time when there's no pope due to a pope dying, and the necessary time needed for a new pope to be elected.

I agree with you.

But does a definition have to provide a cause? Although it would be helpful to bring more precession to a definition, I am sure that it is not required to be classified as a definition. We can take other "isims" and look at their definitions and see if causes are given, for example Capitalism, Communism, Rationalism, etc.

In this case, a cause is needed because the classical definition of Sedevacantism poses a cause.  Do you think that any major Sedevacantist group accepts those who held Benedict XVI as pope as now part of their group?

.

He had a strange tag line that said, "There is no such thing as sedevacantism."

I always wondered, if that's true, then what is it that I believe in?

Well, he also said that Bergoglio is an Antipope.  I just think he objected to the TERM "sedevacantism".

Show me from where you got this definition.  I have a hard time believing that any major Sedevacantist group would accept this definition as sufficient.

There isn't a sedevacantist on the planet who believes otherwise (including yourself).

Thank you for YOUR stripped down definition of Sedevacantism.  If I were to ask you what your definition of "man" is, you would probably answer:

Man is an animate body.

I think the longer you stay here attempting to evade your sedevacantist label by quibbling and bantering about definitions, the more apparent it is that you detest the consequences of your mistaken position (which will shed more dupes from your faction than any amount of debate about the "munus," etc.).

You are showing people that if you believe Cardinal Ratzinger was still pope, you will be reduced to this same sorry state.

Bill Clinton word games don't save you from what you have become.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."