Ok, the poll has been running for over a week, so it's time to draw some conclusions. This poll had 8 selections, and only one of them received 0 votes. True, a couple of these poll options are similar, but not all of them.

https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/poll-personal-position-on-the-pope/

Sedevacantist - 23 (15.8%)
Sede-privationist, Sede-impeditist, Sede-doubtist, etc. 15 (10.3%)
Recognize and Resist - 58 (39.7%)
I just don't know or I have my doubts. 25 (17.1%)
He is the Pope, as certainly as Jesus Christ is God. 7 (4.8%)
OTHER - (e.g., Pope Benedict is still Pope) 13 (8.9%)
Siri Thesis - 5 (3.4%)

TOTAL VOTES: 146

(NOTE: For simplicity sake, I will be rounding ALL results to the nearest whole number in the discussion below, using normal rounding rules.)

But just look at the distribution and lack of consensus! There was barely a winner at all (Recognize and Resist), but that winner received only 40% of the total.

And Sean Johnson (and others) were exasperated by the Sedevacantist presence on CathInfo. They are only 16%! And of that number, only a small portion are any kind of outspoken, aggressive, etc.

And R&R and Sedevacantists, taken together, only constitute 56% of the forum population. Almost half of the forum identifies as neither of these positions. A huge variety!

And I should point out that none of the sedevacantists on CathInfo are "dogmatic sedevacantists", which is defined as: those who consider the empty chair to be another dogma of the Catholic Faith, such that non-sedevacantists can only save their souls if they repent before death, or are invincibly ignorant. For example, the Dimond brothers. Dogmatic sedevacantists are routinely banned, and are forbidden from reading or posting on CathInfo. That's why I didn't offer that as an option in the poll. Any CI member holding such a position is keeping his opinion hidden from me.

So on just this one heading (the status of the current pope) there is a HUGE disagreement among Trads.

I'm really tired of people calling me trad-cuмenical, liberal, or even ecuмenical, when it comes to allowing a wide range of Traditional Catholic opinions on CathInfo.

Just consider how many forums there would have to be, if JUST THIS ONE POINT required unity among forum members. But need I point out that there are many, many other disputed points in the Traditional Catholic world which further divide opinion.

Ecuмenical/liberal is only a valid criticism when the things being tolerated are ERRORS or HERESIES. But in the context of the Traditional movement, there are few errors, and mostly fallible opinions of greater or lesser probability or popularity. The Crisis in the Church is unprecedented and all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church never in their wildest nightmares imagined a situation like the one we call "reality" today. You can quote St. Robert Bellarmine, I can quote St. Matthew, and the debate goes on and on forever. There is no last word or silver bullet on the issue. You might be convinced by this or that quote, or combination of quotes. But the undeniable fact is: others are not. And they are not thereby "of bad will" as you might claim.

Therefore, in this unprecedented time of diabolical disorientation and confusion, I give Traditional Catholics the benefit of the doubt, and allow everything on CathInfo that isn't a clear-cut heresy. Why help the devil to divide us into smaller and smaller groups? If the devil wants division among Traditional Catholics, I want more unity!

When you have an issue that is disputed among theologians, how can you consider one or the other side to be heretical? Of course the one side thinks the other is wrong! But the fact of the matter is: a disputed point is a disputed point.

"In necessariis unitas" - in necessary things (Catholic Faith, dogmas), unity.
"In dubiis libertas" - in doubtful things, liberty.
"In omnibus caritas" - in all things, charity.

Sedevacantism is not a little-known theory, that CathInfo's owner can keep under wraps by banning all mention of it. Trying to ban all mention or discussion of sedevacantism is completely futile, and very Angelqueen, with their BLEEPS! and other nonsense. The members of CathInfo are (mostly) grown adults, who can think and make decisions for themselves. They are going to find out about the option known as "Sedevacantism" one way or another. I can't control them by enacting draconian measures on my little forum here. Some people (I won't get into descriptions) are inclined to the apparent solution to the Crisis offered by sedevacantism, and for this group no amount of arguing is going to keep them away from the position.

As to why we have more than 2 or 3 sedevacantists on CathInfo, I have three explanations: 1. The Crisis in the Church, 2. Human nature, 3. Pope Francis



Several conclusions I am drawing from this poll, in no particular order:

1. CathInfo is not a Sedevacantist forum, not by any stretch of the imagination.

2. No one can say CathInfo isn't a Resistance forum, or a primarily "Recognize and Resist" forum. The winner of the poll was Recognize and Resist, with 40% of the votes. The #2 position was "I just don't know, or I have my doubts" with 17%.

3. There is a wide variety -- and more importantly, a wide distribution -- of opinions on the current status of the Papacy held by CathInfo members. It would seem that CathInfo is NOT populated by a bunch of sheep, following any strong voice that comes along. Everyone already has a strong opinion on this matter. So posting a convincing-sounding collection of pro-Sedevacantist quotes is not going to result in a flood of converts to the position.

4. The overbearing, loud contingent of sedevacantists haven't been very convincing or THAT successful in making converts. But nevertheless, even if it were demonstrated that more and more Trads are considering, talking about, and even embracing the sedevacantist position over the last few years, one should attribute the cause (or "place the blame") squarely where it is due: Pope Francis. Blaming discussion forums for an increase in sedevacantism is motivated by emotion, particularly frustration. It's like blaming gun manufacturers for an increase in murders. Wouldn't it be better to look into WHY more people are trying to kill each other, rather than focusing on the material tool they used to get the job done? A murderer is going to murder even if you refuse him a gun.

5. The idea that I should ban all sedevacantists is ridiculous. Why, because they disagree with my personal Recognize and Resist position? If so, wouldn't I have to ban all the other positions as well? Because let's face it: they all disagree with Recognize and Resist in some way. If I started banning those who I personally considered "in error" -- those I disagreed with -- then where would I stop? I would wake up with a tiny sliver of the original CathInfo membership; a small circle of like-minded friends. But communication among this tight-knit group would be easier by e-mail than a full-on message board. Especially since we'd seldom have anything to talk about!

It facinates me that 20-30% of people 'have a doubt' about the pope, as if their doubts matter.  What matters is reality.  You either accept that Francis is pope or you say he's not the pope, which view cannot be proven and is based on probability, and even then your view is meaningless until the Church speaks on the matter.  What's weird is that this whole 'doubt' mindset has grown from the opinions of theologians, none of which is absolute, nor sactioned by the Church.  Yet somehow many of you think you "have the right" (to use democratic term) to make a determination of the pope's status solely based on theory, probability and "facts" from the news.  It's akin to a self-ascribed PI trying to solve a murder outside the justice system and, while waiting on the courts to start the case, having a demonstration in front of the mayor's office claiming you have 'all the evidence' you need to declare him guilty.

It is incredibly ironic that most of you who fret over this "decision", do so because you over-emphasize the pope's importance to your salvation and his necessity to keeping the Faith, treating the pope as an oracle who can do no wrong.  Yet your idealistic mindset contradicts your modernist/independent/democratic thinking that you somehow can determine the status of his chair and "throw the captain overboard" to save the ship.  On the one hand, he is above reproach and totally necessary for living the Faith; on the other hand, if he falls below such god-like standards, he can be removed through mob rule and personal decision, based simply on theory, speculation and logical reasoning.

It's scary to see the schizophrenic attitude of some of you.

you over-emphasize the pope's importance to your salvation and his necessity to keeping the Faith, treating the pope as an oracle who can do no wrong.

Garbage straw man argument.  Nobody considers the Pope to be "an oracle who can  do no wrong".  You have to make things up to bolster your case.  This is probably the 10th time now you've been caught just making things up.  What we're saying is that for the Magisterium to teach error to the Universal Church on so grand a scale and to promulgate a Universal Discipline that displeases God and harms souls is tantamount to a defection of the Church and is therefore unacceptable.

For in-depth argument -- or back and forth argument ad nauseam -- about sedevacantism, please take it to a new thread (in the Crisis in the Church subforum, of course!)

You have all been warned. Offenders will have their posts removed. Please don't waste your time, or mine, by starting a fist-fight about the status of the Pope in this thread.

Pax vobis dicit...

Pax Vobis has officially defined, declared and promulgated that the 23% of us who have doubts regarding the legitimacy of the papacy of Francis have no rights to do so and are schizophrenics.

Indeed!
Pax Vobis (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church
I wonder if his post above is infallible?



Maybe I should have included another option in my poll: "Francis is not pope, because I'M the Pope!"

It's a conundrum. It isn't a good idea to ban sedes but on the other hand they are also extremely annoying and cause disunity (IMO). The recent article that may have been written by Fr. Nitoglia (it still hasn't been determined who wrote it) says that the subject of Sedeism should be debated, so as to show the flaws in sedeism. I agree, though hesitatingly so. It take up a lot of our valuable time to debate the sedes in order to show them wrong. It sometimes results with a lack of charity from both sides.

I can't think of any issue that I see debated here about which we could not say the same thing.  It is a discussion forum and controversy attracts discussion.  Just what would be discussed here if there were no topics that were extremely annoying and a cause of disunity?

The people like yourself who seem to put a lot of energy and time into "debating the sedes in order to show them wrong" don't seem very effective to me.  Perhaps, as you say, it is because of lack of charity.  I completely disagree with the SV position and yet tend to find the anti-sede posts unpersuasive.

Sede-privationist, Sede-impeditist, Sede-doubtist, etc. 15 (12.3%)
I just don't know or I have my doubts. 23 (18.9%)

It facinates me that 20-30% of people 'have a doubt' about the pope, as if their doubts matter.  What matters is reality.  You either accept that Francis is pope or you say he's not the pope, which view cannot be proven....

Could you please explain how it is possible to prove that something is NOT true?