CathInfo.com

There seems to be a trend for those who do not like the sedevacantist position, or find it to be erroneous to think that people like myself and others are somehow in this special class of "Dogmatic" sedevacantists.

First, such a position is utterly untenable. Sedevacantism cannot, nor will it ever be, a dogma. It is a word used to describe a state of affairs that belong to the temporal order: Sede Vacante. The Seat is vacant.

A sedevacant-ist is a person who contends, against the majority who say otherwise, that there is no Pope because the people who claim to be Pope are manifest, public and pertinacious heretics.

Sedevacant-ism is the actual contention itself.

Nor is it unheard of: I think most of us here have seen the theological writings and have seen the papal writings. The scenario of an heretical Pope being deposed ipso facto by his own public, manifest and notorious heresy is held by the vast majority of theologians who even posit the possibility.

Now, such a theological opinon CANNOT belong to the realm of dogma, because it is, itself, not part of the apostolic preaching, nor is it necessary to believe for salvation.

So why do we contend against those who deny it? Well, there are actually two arguments that often get jumbled and treated (incorrectly) as one:

1. The possiblity of a Pope being a public, manifest and notorious heretic,

2. The Historical reality of this having occured.

Now, first of all, even the SSPX'ers here, I would say at least half of them believe, theologically speaking that point 1 is at least possible.

I do not think the fact that the theologians teach it is possible is the issue: The issue is when we say: Look it happened. And other People say: no, it didn't. But that is not so much a question of theology as it is a question of history. The arguments are historical in nature: Did Paul VI do or say this? Wojtyla Do or say that? Did Benny do or say this? These are all actions that are clearly of an HISTORICAL nature.

A priori, I think most of us accept the theological possiblity of the thing itself: But there are some who contend the "popes" have not done such and such, but they actually make the point; for their argument hinges on the same proposition as ours: That he did NOT DO what we accuse him of doing. This of course presupposes that if he DID we would be right. This is a tacit admission to the theological point.

Therefore the difference is a matter of history and interpreting historical events:

Not DOGMA.

We all affirm the same dogmas. None of us are heretics. But we contend and strive for the truth of the sedevacantist position for the same reason a scholar contends for the accuracy of any other history: IT IS THE TRUTH. It is an objectively verifiable historical fact.

So abandon the misnomer DOGMATIC Sedevacantist and just call us Roman Catholics Who Contend the See is Vacant.

God bless you all,

Gregory I (Daniel).

One does not need to hold to the belief in invalid succession of the men after Pope Pius XII. It is easy enough to see that each of the men following him in their claims to the Papacy have been manifest heretics in their own right.

This is why I say in my signature that I don't need to be a sedevacantist. I don't have to swear by all of the contingencies and if/thens regarding succession, etc. It is enough for me that it has been made perfectly clear by God Almighty which men have been faithful and which have not.

Deo volente, soon we will have our Holy Father to return Rome to her visible and undeniable authority in the world as well as in the hearts of all of us who suffer these wicked usurpers.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

One does not need to hold to the belief in invalid succession of the men after Pope Pius XII. It is easy enough to see that each of the men following him in their claims to the Papacy have been manifest heretics in their own right.

This is why I say in my signature that I don't need to be a sedevacantist. I don't have to swear by all of the contingencies and if/thens regarding succession, etc. It is enough for me that it has been made perfectly clear by God Almighty which men have been faithful and which have not.

Deo volente, soon we will have our Holy Father to return Rome to her visible and undeniable authority in the world as well as in the hearts of all of us who suffer these wicked usurpers.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Wait, do I need to swear by contingencies and if/thens regarding succession?

I thought merely seeing that these men's claims to the papacy when they are manifest heretics and thus not Catholic and therefore, not popes, was sedevacantism.