On another topic, Matthew wrote:

I agree with Nishant, Cantarella, etc. about the dangers of Sedevacantism...

Either Bergoglio is the pope or he is a heretic.  There is no other option.  The glass is either full or it's empty.

Given that no one on this forum has the authority to bind anyone's conscience on the matter, I was wondering...What are the dangers of sedevacantism?

I would ask all the non-sedevacantists to explain this because in this one topic because I truly don't understand what these dangers are.  Of course, I'm talking about dangers that are unique to sedevacantism rather than to people in general.  Are there truly dangers that sedevacantism presents that are not present to the R&R thesis?  

I ask this because it seems to me that every "danger" posed by the sedevacantist thesis applies equally (or, in many cases, more so) to the R&R thesis.  In fact, it seems to me that there is less danger posed by the sedevacantist thesis than by the R&R thesis.

So, I would be truly interested in hearing (here in the Crisis sub-forum) what the perceived dangers of the sedevacantist thesis is.  But please don't complain if your comments are refuted.

Can you really blame us, who hold to the sedevacantist position when YOUR Pope does NOTHING about this:



The Majestic Catholic Cathedral of Santiago Outrageously Profaned!

[/URL][/img]

[/URL][/img]

The Prophecy of St. Bridget of Sweden...

St. Bridget was a Great Prophet for her Heavenly Messages and Prophecies:

"In the year 1980 the wicked will prevail. They will sacrilegiously profane and defile the churches by erecting in them altars to idols and to anti-Christ whom they will worship and attempt to force others to do the same."

-- St. Bridget of Sweden, July 23, 1373

And now to TKGS's POINT!

Obviously I'm a sede but I think when others speak of the so-called dangers they are referring to falling into a dogmatic thought process (calling others who don't hold the same opinion as schismatic, heretics, non-Catholic, etc).

But of course to your point that could happen with those on the sedeplenist side as well (as we have seen with certain posters here).

I agree that it seems to me that every single "danger" of the sedevacantist thesis applies at least equally to the R&R thesis.  But when Matthew specified that he agreed with various posters about the dangers the sedevacantist thesis holds, I truly wanted to understand what those perceived dangers are.

I don't know a single sedevacantist who is happy with the current situation.  I don't know a single sedevacantist who relishes in the crisis in the Church and the usurpation of the papal throne by heretics and apostates.  I don't know a single sedevacantist who is actually gleeful about what happens in the Vatican and in the Conciliar churches on a daily basis.  

It seems to me that the sedevacantist thesis is a safer position than the one the R&R has constructed that reinterprets Catholic doctrines concerning the infallibility of the magisterium, that reinterprets Catholic doctrines concerning canonizations, that degrades the office of the papacy to a mere figurehead who has no real jurisdiction over the faith and morals of the simple faithful, etc., etc., etc.

On the other hand, I have no vested interest in being wrong.  If the sedevacantist thesis is truly a danger and if consistent reason can demonstrate that it is wrong, I want to disavow that thesis.  But, frankly, no one has shown that the sedevacantist thesis is a danger, at least, not a danger that isn't just as present in any other explanation of the Crisis while it seems to me that it poses less danger than many other explanations.

Legalisms aren't useful, for the sedevacantists can point to Canon Law as well (Canon 188, which, frankly, trumps every other canon Siscoe, Ferrara, and others have presented).

We hear a lot about the dangers of the sedevacantist thesis, but if this was so self-evident, I would expect that it should be easy to present them.

I'm not going to smash the Sedevacantist thesis; that's not what this is about.

And I hope this isn't about 1 or more sedevacantist(s) smelling blood because I seem to be "sede-doubtist". ("Just another little push and we can have him on our side, guys!") If it's about that, I'll have to disappoint you.

It's more an argument of prudence.

Sedevacantism is a positive action. In my opinion, it's going above and beyond what is required or necessary for a good Catholic (to use neutral language here).

Resisting Modernism and the Novus Ordo? Necessary. Acknowledging the reality of the destruction of the Church? Necessary. Keeping the Faith? Necessary. Personal declaration/statement that Francis I is not the Pope? Not necessary. Figuring out this Crisis completely, solving all the mystery, and getting to the bottom of it? Unless your name starts with Bishop, I'd say "Not necessary."

By "doing nothing" a good Catholic is an R&R by default. Sedevacantism requires an extra step. Not a lack of action, but a positive action.

This isn't a road that comes to a T. Left turn for Sedevacantism; right turn for R&R.

It's a straight road with a connecting road at one point that leads to Sedevacantism. If you take that right turn, you're on Sedevacantist road. But if you ignore that right turn, the road changes its name to R&R. That's the reality.

No one has really denied this (good thing, too!) It's normal Catholic practice to believe in the Pope, to pray for him, and especially to include his name in the Canon of the Mass.

To stop doing this is a bit risky -- what if you're wrong?  Sedes could say, "what if YOU'RE wrong?" but I would respond: God will understand. I was just doing the "Catholic" thing. That's why you had saints on both sides in the Great Schism -- they were both taking the safe, Catholic path. Rejecting the Pope, however, is a bit more gutsy (and not in a good way!)

And when this positive action is not completely necessary, it then follows logically that you're going to find more extremists/hotheads/etc. per capita than in a "response" that requires less "activity".

The danger of schism (anti una cuм, cutting off other Catholics and even other Trads) seems to be quite real, looking at the historical record. Those who R&R are much less likely to do this, though some "dogmatic" on both sides are the most guilty of this. I guess that shows how it's generally dangerous to go beyond what you know for sure.

Again, this isn't my conclusive nuclear salvo against the Sede position, but it's the prudential argument that keeps me outside of it for now.

The main danger of sedevacantism is becoming a schismatic in which the person is no longer part of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, (this, is the body of Christ Himself) and thus will be unable to enter Heaven. If a person clearly rejects communion with other true Catholics, he /she becomes certainly schismatic. In its most radical way, sedevacantism may also lead to the election of false popes (think, Pope Michael among 20 other..) and home alone phenomenons in which the person becomes so isolated, he / she does not longer attend Mass or take the sacraments.  

By making their Sedevacantism an article of faith, instead of a humble personal opinion, they certainly fall into the second category of persons that canon 1325 declares to be schismatic: "He is a schismatic who rejects communion with members of the Church subject to him (the Roman Pontiff)."  It is by their refusal to be a part of the Church, and effectively making the "church" as they see it consist only in themselves (the sedevacantists) that they are certainly schismatic.

This isn't a road that comes to a T. Left turn for Sedevacantism; right turn for R&R.

It's a straight road with a connecting road at one point that leads to Sedevacantism. If you take that right turn, you're on Sedevacantist road. But if you ignore that right turn, the road changes its name to R&R. That's the reality.

Your latest take is interesting, Matt.  

The main danger of sedevacantism is becoming a schismatic in which the person is no longer part of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, (this, is the body of Christ Himself) and thus will be unable to enter Heaven. If a person clearly rejects communion with other true Catholics, he /she becomes certainly schismatic. In its most radical way, sedevacantism may also lead to the election of false popes (think, Pope Michael among 20 other..) and home alone phenomenons in which the person becomes so isolated, he / she does not longer attend Mass or take the sacraments.  

By making their Sedevacantism an article of faith, instead of a humble personal opinion, they certainly fall into the second category of persons that canon 1325 declares to be schismatic: "He is a schismatic who rejects communion with members of the Church subject to him (the Roman Pontiff)."  It is by their refusal to be a part of the Church, and effectively making the "church" as they see it consist only in themselves (the sedevacantists) that they are certainly schismatic.

This all seemed sort of obvious to me from the beginning.

Quote from: TKGS

Legalisms aren't useful, for the sedevacantists can point to Canon Law as well (Canon 188, which, frankly, trumps every other canon Siscoe, Ferrara, and others have presented).

Legalisms are indeed not useful for the sedevacantist cause because Canonical Law simply does not support it.

The speculation may have ground on Divine Law (if that), but certainly not in Ecclesiastical Law.

By citing an out of context isolated canon (188) the sedevacantists actually show an abuse of Canon Law because Canon 188 simply does not bound the Roman Pontiff because the Roman Pontiff has the supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church (Canon 218). "This power is truly episcopal, ordinary and immediate and extends over each and every person as well as over the faithful and is independent from any human authority".

The Church is a hierarchy and the Roman Pontiff is sole judge of his Cardinals under canons 1557 and 1558 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. No one in the Church, including a General Council, has the legal authority to judge the Popes. Under Ecclesiastical Law, The Pope does not respond to anyone and cannot be judged as a simple cleric.

Anyone who disagrees with the previous statement is welcome to respond, with Canon numbers, how do you deduce that the Roman Pontiff can be judged as a simple cleric?. Feel free to use the 1917 Code of Canon Law since the sedevacantists do not accept the current one of 1983.

Could we not turn this thread into yet another tit for tat about which position is the correct one?  Your last post responded to the main purpose of the thread which was for you and others to explain what you mean by the "dangers" of sedevacantism.

You got that right, they, the non-sede types certainly do "obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of
all.”

At least the sede recognize the ConciLIAR "popes" are not lawful at all.