Can someone explain to me exactly what is meant by this?

Thanks.

The idea the sedevacantism can be considered like a dogma of the Faith is ridiculous. Absolute, googly-eyed, "where's my straightjacket" insanity.

There are plenty of intelligent, educated Catholics of good will who look at Sedevacantism and keep walking. Such is a completely legitimate position.

Oh, but the idea that the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Ground of Orthodoxy, the Spotless Bride of Christ, can officially teach and impose heresy, schism, apostasy, mortal sin, evil laws, false/evil/mortally sinful/invalid worship etc. for decades on end; that blatant, public & manifest heretics and apostates are Catholics and can hold offices in the Church etc. etc. etc. is "sane" and a "completely legitimate position" to hold?

All sedevacantists have a problem with that position because they believe that it cannot be reconciled with Catholic teaching. It's the reason why sedevacantists exist.

Please don't speak for "all sedevacantists" because you don't and you cannot.

While it is true that "all sedevacantists" have come to those conclusions, which is why they are sedevacantist, it is not correct to say that all sedevacantists believe that these conclusions are dogma and that failure to reach these conclusions is heresy.

Those who believe Benedict 16 is the pope of the Roman Catholic Church are, in my opinion, wrong; but they are not, by that fact, outside the Church.  They are outside the Church only in as much as they subscribe to the heresies that Benedict 16 teaches.  

Whether Benedict 16 is a true pope is a matter of fact.  Like many facts that are ascertained by witnesses and deductive reasoning, not everyone sees the same evidence or understands the evidence they do see in the same way.  Only history will tell us who is right just as history tells us that Athanasius was right while Arius was wrong or that Eusebius was right while Nestorius was wrong.  At the time, many people were confused and faithful Catholics differed on each case.

The SSPX, for example, is still Catholic as they have not, as an organization, defected from the faith.

On the other hand, I believe that dogmatic anti-sedevacantism is equally as bad as dogmatic sedevacantism for anyone who is dogmatic on either side of this prudential judgment refuses communion with those who disagree with their personal opinion on the matter of the identity of the pope.  Matthew and I disagree on the answer to that question, but neither of us declare that the other is not a Catholic for that reason.  

CathInfo allows (as opposed to Angelqueen) Catholics to argue the question in a rational manner.  Individuals may be convinced of the opposing arguments and reconsider and change their conclusions, but they are not "converted".  (Interestingly, the SSPX frequently talks about the need to "convert Rome", but that is another topic altogether.)  As long as there is a single claimant to the papacy whose claim has met the external forms (i.e., the people appointed as cardinals meet in conclave and a successor is elected and is accepted by "the world" to be the new pope) the question will remain open.  The question of the "heretic pope" is not one that has clearly and unambiguously been settled.

In any event, in practice, all traditional Catholics who reject the heresies of the Conciliar Church and the docuмents that issued from Vatican 2, act in the same way toward those heresies and the papal commands and teachings that emanate from those heresies.  The difference seems to me to be one of semantics; which is why, I think, dogmatism by either party could be schismatic and should not be tolerated by Catholics.

Now...the dogmatic sedevacantists have just declared me a heretic.

The Doctors of the Church say it is pious and probable, though it cannot be said to be certain, to believe that the Roman Pontiff, by a special favor of divine Providence, will never become a heretic.

This probable yet not certain opinion refers only to private heresy.

Quote from: [i

A Catholic Dictionary[/i]]DOGMA, in its theological sense, is a truth contained in the Word of God, written or unwritten – ie: in Scripture or Tradition – and proposed by the Church for the belief of the Faithful. Thus, dogma is a revealed truth, since Scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost, while tradition signifies the truths which the Apostles received from Christ and the the Holy Spirit, and handed down to the church. ...

Ref: William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold. A Catholic Dictionary. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1909. p.293.

As I would describe it, sedevacantism is a rational conclusion drawn from the application of theological principles to observable facts about words and deeds of certain individuals purported to have succeeded in recent times to the office of Roman Pontiff.  Sedevacantism, being a theological position arrived at by human reason, cannot be a revealed truth. Therefore, the adjective corresponding to the noun, DOGMA, viz: DOGMATIC, cannot rightly be applied as an epithet to the term sedevacantism.

“Dogmatic sedevacantism” is an incoherent expression apparently invented for the purpose of pillorying Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position. I don’t deny that having arrived at that position, some sedevacantists, in their enthusiasm, may fall into the temptation of regarding all non-sedevacantist Catholics as heretics. But that is a failure in truth and in charity. The names of a couple of pseudo-Benedictines come to mind.

It's not incoherent. It communicates a very specific reality.

Some sedevacantists DO believe that sedevacantism is the "central dogma" of the Catholic Faith, and that all those who deny it are heretics or non-Catholics.

In reality, they consider themselves sedevacantists first and Catholics second. Though I doubt they'd admit to this. But their actions speak much louder than their words.

Insane, I know. But it doesn't change the fact that such people exist. I would know; I've run a traditional Catholic forum for 6 years. I've had to ban such people on more than one occasion.

Matthew,
In response to my assertion that “dogmatic sedevacantism” is an incoherent expression...

Quote from: You

It's not incoherent. It communicates a very specific reality.

Well, its obvious that here you and I are not using the word “dogmatic” with the same meaning.

You appear to be employing it in a pejorative sense.

My argument is that sedevacantism is a theological opinion and not a revealed truth.
Therefore, it cannot be dogmatic in the technical sense of the word.

I don’t think you would dispute this.

Sunbeam,

You should actually read the text of what has been written and NOT stop at the point where you read "dogmatic sedevacantism" and stop thinking.

Of course the very idea of "dogmatic sedevacantism" is incoherent, but it is a coherent expression that describes the idea.  There are many sedevacantists who have adopted this idea, the most well-known example probably being the Dimond brothers.

It is clear in this topic that Matthew is using the word, dogmatic, exactly as you are.  What you are doing is refusing to accept the fact that there are people who themselves have made sedevacantism a dogma--thus, "dogmatic sedevacantism".

Surely you have heard of contradictions in terms that describe a reality.  CathInfo is one of the few forums around whose owner is not paranoid that sedevacantists may make sense.

Sunbeam,
You should actually read the text of what has been written and NOT stop at the point where you read "dogmatic sedevacantism" and stop thinking.
Of course the very idea of "dogmatic sedevacantism" is incoherent, but it is a coherent expression that describes the idea.  There are many sedevacantists who have adopted this idea, the most well-known example probably being the Dimond brothers.

It is clear in this topic that Matthew is using the word, dogmatic, exactly as you are.  What you are doing is refusing to accept the fact that there are people who themselves have made sedevacantism a dogma--thus, "dogmatic sedevacantism"

TKGS,
May I respectfully suggest that you take your own advice, and "actually read the text of what has been written".

Here is a relevant part of what I wrote in response to the opening query posed by Disputationes:

I don’t deny that having arrived at that position [=sedevacantism], some sedevacantists, in their enthusiasm, may fall into the temptation of regarding all non-sedevacantist Catholics as heretics. But that is a failure in truth and in charity. The names of a couple of pseudo-Benedictines come to mind.

In that last sentence, have I not already alluded to the very individuals you here cite as a "most well-known example"?
When you say "the very idea of 'dogmatic sedevacantism' is incoherent", are you not conceding the point that I made earlier?
If so, then what's the problem?

-----------------------------------

May I, whilst writing, thank Matthew for crediting me with common sense.
Insofar as the attribution is deserved, I put it down to trying to think objectively.

In that last sentence, have I not already alluded to the very individuals you here cite as a "most well-known example"?

Bp. Daniel L. Dolan has explicitly stated that the non-papacy of Benedict XVI is a dogmatic fact. I think its reasonable to assume Fr. Cekada believes so as well. So it's not just the Zirconia brothers who have gone off the deep end.