Talk:Sedevacantism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

Membership[edit]

Many of the sedevacantists were originally members of the [Society of St. Pius X]?, but split because they refused to accept John Paul II as pope.

Huh? I thought that SSPX has been in schism since 1988, and that this had nothing to do with sedevacantism. Are you saying that many sedevacantists have left SSPX because it wasn't radical enough?

--Ben

Although the Pope is many things, I doubt that he is vacant.. User:JCWF

PLEASE stop claiming that the term Novus Ordo and Novus Ordo Missæ are terms used by critics of the new Mass. It isn't. It is called that by critics and supporters of the new Mass. For example Frit Albers, Ph.B. published IN DEFENSE OF THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI. The term is used by the Vatican, was recently used by the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin and in numerous Catholic publications. FearÉIREANN 21:38 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Could you please cite one example where the Vatican calls the mass celebrated according to the new missal a "Novus ordo mass"?
Please note: I never claimed that the term "novus ordo" or even "novus ordo missae" (= "new order of mass" and not "new order mass"!) is only used by critics. I claim that the mass celebrated according to the new missal is not called "Novus Ordo mass" by its (well, theologically halfway versed) defenders. Your example doesn't show anything: Frit Albers published a defense of the new order of mass and not a defense of "the New Order mass". For anybody understanding Catholic theology to call the mass as celebrated today the "New Order mass" as opposed to the tridentine mass only could be a - deeply misleading - slip of language as there are not two masses but only one mass celebrated since apostolic times. (This is of course the reason why the - schismatic - critics of the new Roman Missal like to speak of the "New Order mass": If it were a new mass it indeed couldn't be the true mass anymore.)


Look -- just because some traditionalists use "New Order" as a codeword with all sorts of loaded meanings doesn't mean that the term has such a stigmatized meaning when used by everyone else. Just a simple search on Zenit shows Cardinal Ratzinger using the term in the quote "The free space which the 'Novus ordo Missae' leaves for creativity in the liturgy is, often, excessively broadened." here: http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/9811/ZE981102.html#a5
Again, "novus ordo missae" (= new order of mass) not "novus ordo mass" as in the article. And, BTW, private talks by Cardinal Ratzinger are not statements by the Vatican.
If you'd like, feel free to re-word the sentence in question in such a way that both those who attach special meaning to the terms and the general public will understand it to mean the same thing -- i.e. the liturgy (often) in the vernacular celebrated by a priest facing the congregation. If this means "new order of mass" or "mass according to the Novus Ordo" or "Novus Ordo Missae" that's cool -- add that genitive ending! Just don't change the sentence to conform to the fringe-on-the-flag meaning at the expense of distorting the meaning for those of us not "theologically halfway versed." --Ben
Thanks for your license!
Sorry my comments came out snippy. I really like your new wording -- it's very clear.
I would add that there is a principal flaw in the presentation of the entire article, and which is touched on in the discussion of the content and POV, below. And that is the labelling used. What is - Catholic? For example, one can say Sunni or Shi-ite. One can one say - Muslim - for either. But if one then adds - Greek Orthodox - and says that is also Muslim and that furthermore then some-Muslims-believe, then one is saying Sunni and Shi-ite do not, if they are falsely said to be of the same religion as the Greek Orthodox. The sedevancant, now so-called, would similarly not confess certain keys views (and therefore all the views, when such dogmas are not reducible, nor subject to 'cafeteria' selection) of anyone confessing the current Popes. And to say that those who do or do not are all similarly "traditionalist Catholics" is to say that those who by any measure would be, are not. For one cannot separate sedevancatism from Catholicism. The definition of sedevacantism is that they are Catholic, and those following the Pope - are not. The Popes of the Vatican II era are frauds, they'd say. Their church is an anti-Church, opposed to The Church. Confession of one OR the other could not be called the same thing. The trappings may be similar. But no one confuses Greek Orthodoxy with sedevacantism, save that the Greek have NEVER confessed the Pope, regardless. The Armenians have similar vestments and ceremonies. But no one says they are Roman Catholic, and so on. The Copts. The Russian Orthodox. Ethiopians. So while there is an outward similarity in rites and some beliefs, to equate those who confess these latest Popes with those who actually condemn them with the same term, 'traditionalist Catholic', is just as if one lazily lumped in the Greek Orthodox with Islam and said it was all just Islam of one 'sort' or another, as a way of fuzzing over and vitiating true Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.159.76 (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sedevacantism - How to Tell Aunt Helen[edit]

Sedevacantism -


How to Tell Aunt Helen Father Anthony Cekada

Author's note: Early in 1995 I carried on a cordial correspondence over the issue of sedevacantism with a Catholic priest who operates an independent traditional chapel. In one letter he allowed that while many of the sedevancantist arguments seemed reasonable, the "pastoral" side of the issue bothered him. He worried that such a position would shock parishioners, both current and potential, and possibly drive them into the arms of compromise groups such as the Fraternity of St. Peter. How would simpler people react, he wondered. And what would my Aunt Helen think? Herewith my reply.

Dear Father: Thanks for your kind letter of March 28th. A lot has been going on here (Holy Week, travels, etc.) so I haven't been able to reply promptly. Mea culpa!

I thought I'd offer you some thoughts not so much apropos the sede vacante question and the Tridentine Rite Conference, but rather on the pastoral treatment of the sede vacante issue in general. I certainly understand your concern. Your question, "What would Aunt Helen think?" is a good one, in the sense that we certainly don't want to scare people off. How should we handle it so that we don't give laymen a wrong impression? Herewith, my reflections:

While I've been a sedevacantist since even before my ordination, I've handled the issue pastorally in a variety of ways over the years. I like to think that I finally learned something from my many blunders. The following approaches did not work:

Pulpit pounding, inflammatory rhetoric, repeated emotional denunciations from the pulpit. This drove newcomers and old-timers away. It was invariably misinterpreted as "attacking the pope."

Only rare, subtle allusions to issue from pulpit. Pointless. People don't pick up on subtleties.

Discuss pope issue only when asked privately. It seems deceptive to new people. They feel you've been hiding something from them.

Present the sede vacante and I-can-disobey-him-but-he's-still-my-father approaches as equally acceptable options. Illogical if one believes the sede vacante thesis. Many new people, moreover, find the "right-to-disobey" option profoundly unsettling, since "good Catholics obey the pope."

Silence on the issue. People will never have a coherent explanation for their course of action. Or they'll be easily lured back to the Novus Ordo or some St. Peter Fraternity/Indult operation.

What I've found, moreover, is that newcomers to the tradition-al Mass are usually worried about the "disobedience/pope/authority" issue, even if they don't come out and mention it right away.

The consequences of not addressing the issue are grave. For years, people in an independent traditionalist chapel may hear either nothing about the pope/authority issue -- or they hear sentimental and/or theologically suspect notions like the following: we support the pope, the bishop we can reject, the pope's really on our side, he's deceived by evil men around him, the Mass is all that really counts, we can disobey bad orders from the pope and bishop, he's still the pope, he's all we've got, etc. A congregation that gets this sort of thing all the time will be pushovers when some day an Indult/St. Peter Fraternity type comes along to offer them the devil's bargain of both "the pope" and a "legit" traditional Mass. Why not take the offer? Shouldn't Catholics want to be "united to the pope"? It's perfectly logical if someone recognizes him as one of Peter's true successors.

Dollars to doughnuts, this is exactly why the modernists were able to take over the Pequannock [New Jersey] chapel the way they did. It could never happen in one of our churches. Most of our people understand that JP2 and company are enemies of the Catholic faith; they'd rather burn down the buildings than let the modernists take over.

The approach to the pope issue I now take with new people is rather direct. I find that if you explain things clearly and in a matter-of-fact fashion right away, people will actually be relieved, and that there will be far less of a chance of losing them to the Ordo or to the Indult/St. Peter Fraternity crowd. I make a point of inviting them over for a chat so they have plenty of opportunity to ask questions. I deal with the obedience/pope/authority issue roughly as follows:

1. I discuss why a new person abandoned his parish and came to the traditional Mass. (Inevitably, the reply is that the New Mass is irreverent, sacrilegious, full of errors, otherwise bad, etc., while the traditional Mass is reverent, respectful, orthodox, etc.)

2. I point out how most of the objectionable features of the New Mass (communion in the hand, "cultural adaptation," etc.) are officially permitted or even recommended by liturgical legislation approved by Paul VI and his successors.

3. As Catholics, though, we know that the Church's infallibility is not limited merely to ex cathedra pronouncements, but also extends to universal laws, specifically to her rites. It is impossible for the Church to give a law or approve a rite which promotes error or harms souls.

4. Problem: On the one hand, it is self-evident to us that the New Mass does promote error and harm souls. On the other, because of infallibility, a law or rite approved by the authority of the Church cannot promote error or harm souls.

5. We're faced with a choice. Either: (1) Church authority no longer enjoys infallibility-- impossible, due to Christ's promise; or (2) The men who promulgated the laws or rites which promote error and harm souls, did not truly possess the authority of the Church.

6. How is this possible? Heresy or public defection from the faith means automatic loss of office, because heresy puts you outside the Church. Example: Archbishop Cranmer during the Protestant revolt in England. When at some point his personal heresy became manifest, he put himself outside the Church and lost authority over Catholics. He still appeared to be Abp. of Canterbury (retaining his miter, crozier, throne, cathedral, and cope), but because of his defection from the faith, in the eyes of God he objectively lost his authority and office. (Arius, and other examples are sometimes helpful.)

7. This principle applies to anyone who holds authority or an office in the church -- a diocesan bishop, archbishop, pastor of a parish, even a pope.

8. A Pope too? When elected to the papacy, you don't lose your free will. You can choose to do evil things. You can also lose the faith, and embrace error as a private person. When your defection from the faith becomes publidy manifest, you automatically lose your office.

9. This is not just something invented by traditionalists. It is the teaching of major theologians and canonists. Even a pope (Paul IV) said such a situation was possible.

10. Faced with the choice of believing that either: (1) The authority of the Church promotes error/harms souls (an impossibility, given the Church's infallibility) or that (2) a pope as an individual has defected from the faith and consequently lost his office (a possibility admitted by theologians and even popes), the logic of the faith compels us to believe the latter proposition.

11. A Catholic, therefore, would owe no obedience to someone who does not truly possess the Church's authority. Condemnations from the modernist V-2 hierarchy shouldn't worry us, anymore than we would worry about being condemned by the local Anglican or Lutheran bishop.

12. At the same time, I'm not the pope, and I don't require that you sign on the dotted line to all this before coming to Mass here. It's just that, having heard many explanations for the post-Vatican II mess, this seems to be the only one which makes sense in terms of the Church's infallibility.

13. But don't just take my word for it. Study the issue, think about it, discuss it with others, come back with any questions, worries.

You probably remember the saying: "Real men don't eat quiche." The principle behind the above boils down to something like "Real popes don't issue Novus Ordos" -- if the New Mass is evil, protestant, and sacrilegious, in other words, then it could not have come from a real pope (someone who truly possessed authority in the eyes of God).

I have gone over these points like this with about ten new families over the past year here. No one seemed shocked, everyone asked intelligent questions, all said it sounded reasonable, and everyone (to my knowledge) now faithfully attends Mass here.

My purpose in bringing all this up, I suppose, is to demonstrate that a reasonable and pastoral approach is possible when discussing the pope issue with the laity.

Enclosed is a reprint of my article on the pope issue. It started out as a lecture which was very well received. I give a copy to new-comers, along with the usual packet of info.

Also in the works: a new and improved version of Welcome to the Traditional Latin Mass, a Tridentine Mass/Novus Ordo compared pamphlet I wrote a couple of years ago. I'll send you a copy as soon as it's printed.


Be assured, Father, of my prayers for you.


Fraternally in Christ, The Rev. Anthony Cekada

St. Gertrude the Great Church 11144 Reading Road Cincinnati OH 45241

DID BELLARMINE CONDEMN SEDEVACANTISM?[edit]

DID BELLARMINE CONDEMN SEDEVACANTISM by Father Anthony Cekada

In debates among traditional Catholics regarding the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar popes, the following quote from St. Robert Bellarmine has been repeatedly recycled:

"Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice. II.29.)

Some use this quote, taken from Bellarmine's lengthy treatise defending the power of the pope, to condemn "sedevacantism" -- the thesis which maintains that the post Conciliar hierarchy, including the post-Conciliar popes, lost their office ipso facto through heresy. I have seen it employed this way no less that three times in the past four months -- once in The Remnant (Edwin Faust, "Signa Temporum," I5 April I994, 8), once in The Catholic (Michael Farrell, Letter to Editor, "Simple Answer to the Sede-Vacancists," April I994, 8), and once by a Society of St. Pius X priest.

Traditional Catholics who reject the New Mass and the post-Vatican II changes but still maintain that the post-Conciliar popes legitimately hold office -- a group which includes the Society, Michael Davies, and many others -- also see in this passage some sort of justification for recognizing someone as pope but rejecting his commands.

The quote has been cited over and over to support these positions, in complete good faith, no doubt. Alas, it has been taken out of context and completely misapplied. In its original context, Bellarmine's statement neither condemns the principle behind the sedevacantist position, nor justifies resisting laws promulgated by a validly-elected pope.

What is more, in the chapter immediately following the statement quoted, Bellarmine defends the thesis that a heretical pope automatically loses his office.

In passing, we should first note how it is a stupid calumny to cite this passage and to suggest that sedevacantists "judge," "punish," or "depose" the pope. They do no such thing. They merely apply to the words and acts of post-Conciliar popes a principle enunciated by many great canonists and theologians, including (as we shall see) St. Robert Bellarmine: a heretical pope "deposes" himself.

I. THE MEANING OF THE PASSAGE HAS BEEN DISTORTED BY TAKING IT OUT

  OF ITS PROPER CONTEXT.

The passage cited is from a lengthy chapter Bellarmine devotes to refuting nine arguments advocating the position that the pope is subject to secular power (emperor, king, etc.) and an ecumenical council (the heresy of conciliarism).

The general context, therefore, is a discussion of the power of the state vis-a-vis the pope. Obviously, this has nothing whatsoever to do with issues the sedevacantists have raised.

In its particular context, the oft-cited quote is part of Bellarmine's refutation of the following argument:

"Argument 7. Any person is permitted to kill the pope if he is unjustly attacked by him. Therefore, even more so is it permitted for kings or a council to depose the pope if he disturbs the state, or if he tries to kill souls by his bad example."

Bellarmine answers:

"I respond by denying the second part of the argument. For to resist an attacker and defend one's self, no authority is needed, nor is it necessary that he who is attacked be the judge and superior of him who attacks. Authority is required, however, to judge and punish."

It is only then that Bellarmine states:

Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice. II.29.)

The quote, then, is not a condemnation of sedevacantism." Bellarmine, rather, is discussing the course of action which may legitimately be taken against a pope who upsets the political order or "kills souls by his bad example." A king or a council may not depose such a pope, Bellarmine argues, because they are not his superior -- but they may resist him.

Nor does this quote support those traditional Catholics who would recognize John Paul II as pope but reject his Mass and ignore his laws.

First, the passage justifies resistance by kings and councils. It does not say that individual bishops, priests and laymen on their own possess this right to resist the pope and ignore his commands -- still less that they can set up places of worship in opposition to diocesan bishops a pope has lawfully appointed.

Second, note the precise causes for resistance in the case Bellarmine is discussing: disturbing the state or giving bad example. These, obviously, are not the same thing as papal liturgical legislation, disciplinary laws or doctrinal pronouncements which an individual might somehow deem harmful. Bellarmine would hardly approve of disregarding, carte blancbe, for 30 years the directives of men one claims to recognize as legitimate occupants of the papal office and the vicars of Christ on earth.

In sum, the passage neither condemns sedevacantism nor supports traditionalists like the adherents of the Society of St. Pius X.

II. BELLARMINE TEACHES THAT A HERETICAL POPE AUTOMATICALLY

   LOSES HIS OFFICE.

In the chapter which immediately follows the passage cited, St. Robert Bellarmine treats the following question: "Whether a heretical pope can be deposed." Note first, by the way, that his question assumes a pope can in fact become a heretic.

After a lengthy discussion of various opinions theologians have given on this issue, Bellarmine says:

"The fifth opinion therefore is the true one. A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. (De Romano Pontifice. II-30. My emphasis)"

Bellarmine then cites passages from Cyprian, Driedonus and Melchior Cano in support of his position. The basis for this teaching, he says finally, is that a manifest heretic is in no way a member of the Church - neither of its soul nor its body, neither by an internal union nor an external one.

Thus the writings of Bellarmine, far from condemnng the sedevacancist position, provide the central principle upon which it is based -- that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic automatically loses his office and jurisdiction.

Nor is Bellarmine's teaching an isolated opinion. It is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers, he assures us. And the principle he enunciated has been reiterated by theologians and canonists right into the 20th century, including commentators on the I983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II himself.



THOSE WHO WOULD recognize John Paul II as pope while disregarding all his commands, therefore, can take no consolation whatsoever in the passage from Bellarmine.

It is the sedevacantist position, rather, that is supported by the teaching of the great Robert Bellarmine: a legitimate pope must be obeyed; a heretical pope loses his office.

27 April 1994 St. Gertrude the Great Church 11144 Reading Road Cincinnati, OH 45241

possible NPoV[edit]

It is said: "Sedevacantists (or conclavists) argue that the Truth has been successfully hidden from the world for nearly fifty years and uncovered by them...". I wonder if the author can cite a source for this. I don't believe that it is an SV position. The truth has always been there and the church has continued, but some of us have been temporarily blind to these facts. The church doesn't depend on SVists but on the holy Ghost. By contrast, supporters of Vatican II suggest that the truth was somehow hidden until the 20th century reformers discovered it.

Better understandings of the truth can be reached, which was the point of Vatican II. In fact, if not only the truth but our understanding of the truth were fixed for all time, there would be no need for church Councils in the general sense, because they would be simply restating what was already known. Iceberg3k 21:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
The Vatican II reforms were directed at matters of small-t tradition that were impeding in people's relationship with God (like celebrating Mass in a language virtually nobody understands). Sedevacantists cannot decisively point to any matters of church Dogma or Sacred Tradition - the infallible parts of Catholic teaching - which were altered by Vatican II or indeed by any Church council, and instead focusing on "proving" that the later Popes are apostate by pointing out contradictions between later statements and earlier fallible Papal writings. Papal decisions handed down in bulls, encyclicals, et cetera do not meet the standards for Papal infallibility, and can be later reformed or revised. However, sedevacantists do commit the fallacy of coincidental correlation, in presuming that the general and widespread reduction in religiosity in the industrialized world through the latter half of the twentieth century is anything specifically "wrong" with the Church herself. Iceberg3k 13:58, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Palmar de Troya is listed as sedevacantist but, since that movement says it has a pope, it is not.

At present, sedevacantists and conclavists are listed together. Iceberg3k 21:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Some claimants are listed as antipopes. I suppose those who think Karol Wojtyla is an antipope should go and rename the Wikipedia page about him but that could lead to much futile editing and counter-editing.

Sedevacantist claimants are listed as antipopes because they are elected in opposition to a Supreme Pontiff which the wide world holds to be validly elected, and to validly hold the Papal Office. The Sedevacantist claim that this is not so - especially given the rather insubstantial and air-filled charges leveled against the Popes - is not sufficient to nullify the general acknowlegement of Popes J-23, P-6, JP-1, JP-2 and B-16 as legitimate. Iceberg3k 21:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


[Ah! So now we are enlightened! It is approval and acceptance by the World and not conformity with the Holy Catholic Faith that determines who is and who is not, true Pope! Come, all ye faithful, let us all fall down and worship this World, God the Greatest than all three Hypostases combined, Hallelujah! WikiSceptic 05:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)]
I can declare myself the King of Java, or the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, but unless my declaration is congruent with the reality of the objective world, my declaration is absolutely meaningless. So it is with the sedevacantist antipopes: They can say that the real Popes are false ones all they wish, but until and unless their words are backed up with action - and dressing up as a Pope and posting "encyclicals" and web pages on the Internet is not action - their declarations of papacy and heresy have in fact considerably less force than the imperial reign and proclamations of Emperor Norton. Iceberg3k 16:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I note that the Wiki page on the reformation is written from a protestant perspective.

--Pauldanon 16:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iceberg writes above: "Sedevacantists cannot decisively point to any matters of church Dogma or Sacred Tradition - the infallible parts of Catholic teaching - which were altered by Vatican II ...". My experience is that SVists do little else! Indeed, it's what makes them SVists. There are many websites out there showing how Vatican II contradicts church-teaching. Even the website of the pro-Benedict XVI Society of St Pius X includes a table comparing V2 with the faith. www.danon.co.uk 20051128

They point it out a lot, all right, but decisively? No. For it to be decisive, it would have to be convincing to more than a tiny fragment of the population. Iceberg3k 19:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Small but important change to achieve neutral point of view[edit]

To achieve neutral point of view: "Sedevacantists are a traditional Catholic segment of Catholicism" replaced with "Sedevacantists consider themselves a traditional Catholic segment of Catholicism"

As you know very well, self-attested proof is null and vood, thus the above change was necessary and right. Othervise 99% of the world considers these guys either lunatics or heretics, but we don't mention that, do we?

The rewording is no more neutral than the original. The original implies SVists are Catholic; the redraft implies they aren't. I can see why someone may want to change the text, but neutrality has not been achieved. It would be better if the page were redone (a) without the controversy and (b) as a mere description of SV belief. www.danon.co.uk 20051128

Accurate would be "Sedevacantists are schismastic Catholics who believe themselves to be the remnant of the Catholic Church," but that sounds a bit on the combative side. Iceberg3k 18:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Combative, indeed, and inaccurate! This is why the encylo-article must just describe the stance, regardless of folks' opposition thereto. I don't go to the WP article on protestantism and insert an eight-page refutation of it. www.danon.co.uk 20060503

Counter-sedevacantist arguments[edit]

Nobody "forgets" that there is a period of sede vacante between the death of a pontiff and the election of the new one. But such a period is not part of the ordinary constitution of the Church. The longest sede vacante was three years in length, and was protracted as it was simply because the Cardinals could not decide on a single Pontiff. Iceberg3k 03:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

conclavism[edit]

The article would be more helpful if it simply referred readers to an article on conclavism. I wrote the preceding sentence some months ago and am concerned to see the page festooned with pictures of conclavist antipopes. Although I would defend the principle of there being a page about conclavism, it gives a misleading impression to give such prominence on this page to people who, by their very claims, are not sedevacantist. I agree with those who are concerned by the controversial nature of this subject and also agree with those who see an encyclopedia-article as needing to consist purely of facts. Indeed, this discussion page should be about the article and not its subject. There are plenty of places on the net for controversy about SVism. www.danon.co.uk 20051128

The article currently suggests that only a majority of SVists oppose conclavism. By definition, an SVist opposes conclavism as he also opposes the current occupant of the apostolic palace in Rome. www.danon.co.uk 20060419

objectivity[edit]

More space is devoted to objections to SVism than to a statement of the position. Such discussion belongs on this page rather than in the article. On the Wikipedia page on Buddhism I can see no section called Arguments against Buddhism. www.danon.co.uk

Firstly, please sign your edits. Secondly, if one was discussing fringe members of Buddhist claiming that they were the real buddhists and the rest weren't, there would of course be a long passage discussing the claims. No-one is making "arguments against Roman Catholicism". They are just discussing whether the claims of modern sedevantists are valid or invalid. It belongs in there. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing (now corrected). As I say, there's more material knocking SVism than in support of it. This suggests debate rather than documentation. The view that SVism is fringe is itself a debating position. It goes against the spirit of Wikipedia to have an article which is about a subject, most of which is dedicated to debate about it. I don't mind discussion of a subject, but that belongs here. There is plenty to dispute about Buddhism but, rightly, the Wikipedia article on the subject restricts itself to the facts. The article on the US Republican party does not have a section called Why Democrats think Republicans are wrong. www.danon.co.uk

"Sedevacantist Pope Michael II" does not make sense. Mr Bawden does not claim to be the second pope called Michael and, because he says he's pope, he's not SV. www.danon.co.uk

A very sad development.[edit]

I as a neutral non-sedevacantist Catholic look upon the writers of this article with profound sadness. It has become an article in which is merely bashed against the movement of sedevacantism. This is not fitting for an encyclopedia. It is also hideous to see those Catholics who pose as "Rome loyals" lie by their saying the apostolic succession and episcopal consecration of sedevacantist bishops is invalid. This is a lie, and contradicted by many Acts of the Apostolic See in which the "Thuc line" bishops are treated as valid bishops. Two years ago one of them was reconciled to John Paul II personally. Would somebody of these writers know better than Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in 1983, who declared these Thuc line bishops valid though illicit. Bashing is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. It is against the very idea of it. If someone wants to spread rumours, lies and false information about this theological movement: please start your own blog. We do not accept traditionalist propaganda pamphlet, neither do we accept anti-traditionalist propaganda at Wikipedia. 82.72.242.204 23:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Could the article have a rework so that it states the SVist case without any polemic? There could be a separate article about the controversy which surrounds SVism and/or an article describing objections to SVism from, inter alia, followers of Benedict XVI, Michael I (and suchlike papal claimants with minority-support), and recusants who say there probably is an occult pope? www.danon.co.uk 20051128

I note: "Non-sedevacantist Traditionalist Catholics ... readily acknowledge that [Pope Paul VI and his successors] have held and taught unorthodox beliefs, but would stop short of affirming that they have been heretics." I can't see how they can do both. If I hold an unorthodox belief, I'm a heretic. If I'm a heretic, I hold unorthodox beliefs; it's what I do. www.danon.co.uk 20060508

This is based on the distinciton of a material and formal heretic. In precise usage of the word "heretic" it is always implied that it is formal heresy, meaning that the heretic was corrected for his heresy by authority he recognizes in Rome and nevertheless opposes that authority. That reveals the bad will. Besides that, the context of using "heretic" can mean a material heretic when it is obvious that the person is objectively in error, but has not yet been corrected by the top authority it recognizes. Material heretics, for practical reasons, are treated by fellow Catholics about the same only because the danger of the error is effective regardless of good will or bad will. The above quote apparently is talking about people such as the SSPX. Their circumstance is just a little different only because of the unprecedented circumstances of the fact that the top authority is the one being accused of heresy himself. So I would still classify the SSPX as material heretics, though of a most serious sort. Not like an 8 year old who gives his materially erroneous view of what the Trinity is. (Diligens 14:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

I forgot to say, that the above principle does not hold the same way with a legitimate pope because he has no superior earthly authority over him to determine formal heresy. However, there is a replacement factor that gives us certainty of his formal heresy by the fact that he is the only man protected by Infallibility as head of the Catholic Church. Meaning that it is of Faith the Holy Ghost would prevent a pope, even if it means death, from accidentally promulgating heresy to the Church, and if it is seen that he does so, it necessarily means that the Holy Ghost didn't protect him for the fact that his bad will made him lose the virtue of Faith before the promulgation making him cease automatically to be a true pope before the time of promulgation. It would be a dogmatic fact, based on the Faith, that he was no longer pope. People such as those in the SSPX do not understand this, and so they do a contradictory thing, as danon.co.uk said, seeing the promulgation of heresy and still considering him a true pope, which is against the Faith. This article does indeed need fixing up. (Diligens 14:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

Most grateful to Diligens for his interesting comments above. On the matter of: ""Non-sedevacantist Traditionalist Catholics ... readily acknowledge that [Pope Paul VI and his successors] have held and taught unorthodox beliefs, but would stop short of affirming that they have been heretics." and Diligens' reply to me, if I call you a formal heretic, I call you a heretic. If I call you a material heretic I call you a heretic. SSPX continue to puzzle me. Diligens describes them as "misunderstanding" the matter of the status of a pope who promotes heresy, yet they are well-educated people. www.danon.co.uk 20060510

I've fixed the section. To clarify the SSPX position, they maintain that they have no authority to determine whether a Pope is guilty of formal heresy, and also believe that none of the recent Popes have committed material heresy in a manner which would otherwise be considered infallible. It's really quite simple.

Clarification[edit]

May I know the basis of defining the "Palmarians" as "Conclavists"? I believe that the term Conclavist in the context of Traditionalist Catholicism or Sedevacantism is restricted to those Sedevacantist groups that believe that they can form some kind or the other of a conclave and elect a pope to end the vacancy that Sedevacantism is premised upon; and that "Palmarianism" would meet with the definition of "Mysticalists" — groups surrounding persons who claim to have been "mystically" constituted pope. Please clarify. WikiSceptic 16:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I know you may be right. While we group conclavists of different stripes here, the "palmarians" fall outside this group. Catholic Answers put them in this roundup [1] and I found this with a "church" history [2] [3]. They have 70+ "bishops" according to this site, but there is doubt (!) on the validity of the elevations.
A quote:

Creatures, who live on the Planet of Antichrist come from the fourth dimension, and people who live in the Planet of Mary, including Eliash, Henoh, Moises and saint John, look at the Space from the eight dimension. During the Armageddon people from the Planet of Mary will come back on Earth to help us in the battle.

wow! Dominick (TALK) 17:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I have been in contact with Robert Nogacki of Wandea.org for 4-5 years. I had correspondended with Alonso Corral in 1993, but broke off when he told me they are "Mysticalists". Wandea has exposed Dominguez and Corral as being sodomites and sexmaniacs who abused not only males but also females in the sect. Like the Feeneyites, "Old Catholics" and Guenonites (Rama Coomaraswamy) they are enemy parasites come in taking advantage of the confusion to prey on Catholics! But Wandea also informs that a group broke away, and probably calls itself the "Archidonian Church". Would like more info. WikiSceptic 08:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Mel Gibson[edit]

Does this have anything to do with Mel Gibson? I hear he hates Vatican II also. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

His dad has written an interesting book on the church, but I believe Mr Gibson visited the novus ordo American bishops' conference to check out The Passion of the Christ with them. Sadly, you can't have your cake and eat it. www.danon.co.uk

how many people are we talking about?[edit]

The article needs to state, preferably in paragraph #1, how many people are sedevacantists, in order to establish the level of notability of this movement, for the reader's sake. I myself have no idea. Are we talking about 50 people or 50 million? Tempshill 03:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis Schuckardt[edit]

The Wikipedia Francis Schuckardt article contains a lot of information from the subject of the article's website which details this man's previously unpublished view on Sedevacantism which is said to date back to the late 60s. If anyone knowledgable editor cares to take a look, it would be helpful. The article just completed arbitration and one of the decisions was that it is allowable for the subject of the article to use his own website as a verifiable source for his own beliefs even though they never were published. My knowledge of the topic of sedevacantism is inadequate to determine the merits of his theological argument. I am specifically interested in how his arguments differ from the accepted view of what the Sedevacantist's believe as the representative of this bishop of the TLRCC claims it is indeed different. As the information is also on the subject's website, I believe the information in the article needs to be condensed, but I do not understand the subject well enough myself. Bernie Radecki 22:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Aulic exclusiva and Sedevacantism[edit]

Have there been any claims on behalf of persons against whom the Aulic exclusiva was exercised? Jackiespeel 17:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Vertified?[edit]

Under the heading, Sedevacantist groups, first bulleted item, Most Holy Family Monastery, "...Only two vertified members, Michael and his biological brother Peter. Obviously this should be either verified or certified, but it has to be the writer's call. Koro Neil (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also the group titled "The Church of Jesus Christ Divine Physician" is listed first, as an international megachurch. However given that it has an old website using badly photoshopped clipart, speaks of all its work being in the future, and has no real address (Kensington W8 is a large area of London) and two vague email addresses, I don't think this is a substantial group if it exists at all. Is there anyone who can give more accurate information about this group? 31.185.237.252 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Cite Sedevacantist Arguments[edit]

Would it be too much to ask for this page to actually include some of the sedevacantist arguments? That is, WHY do they consider these popes to be heretics? The entire article is useless without that kind of fundamental information. Cnanninga (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Quantity[edit]

Also, it would be desirable to have quantity. Lots of space devoted to this article without knowing whether there are 10 or 1 million adherents. Student7 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I think it would be a number of people rather than a quantity.Bitbut (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Illicit" bishops[edit]

The text now states (in the Early history section)

"In 1969, Brown illicitly received episcopal orders from an Old Catholic bishop,..."

I do not think that the unqualified term "illicitly" should be used here. The formal meaning is that this was a criminal act, according to the (secular) common law of the country; I'm fairly sure this was not the case. I guess that the meaning is that the consecration as a bishop was an invalid and possibly also a forbidden act, according to the church of which he still was a member.

(I hope that the writer does not mean that the wikipedia articles should condemn any act of consecration not sanctioned by the Catholic Church as "illicit"; it may well be his/her personal view that e.g. all consecrations of Lutheran bishops in the Churches of Denmark, Norway, or Sweden, are "illicit"; however, they are considered as fully valid within these churches, and Wikipedia cannot take the stand that the opinions of one faith should be presented as the sole objective truth.)

Hopefully, this is a lapse of pen (or of buttons...). If the consecration was officially denounced as illicit by some Catholic authority, it should be well to point that out, instead. If it was just ignored, possibly a reference to the official view of the (main) Catholic Church on consecrations by Old Catholics in general might be inserted. At the very least, "illicitly" should be qualified as "illicitly (in the view of ...)". JoergenB (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree that the word "illicitly" suggests a violation of civil law, and believe that "illicitly" can well refer to a violation of canon law, I think that, in the context, the word is not NPOV, and I have removed it. Esoglou (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Apostasy vs. "Traditional Catholicism"[edit]

Sedevacantists are not "Traditional Catholics" because they are not Catholic, as evidenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."(402) "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."(403)

883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."(404)

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."(405) But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor."(406)

885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."(407)"

On the same page see:

"891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM

128.2.118.172 (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


At least in some circumstances, a Catholic could doubt the validity of a papal election (and the consequent claim of the person elected to be the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome, the pastor of the whole Church, the Supreme Pontiff) without necessarily thereby defecting from the Catholic Church. In particular, they would fully subscribe to each of the above statements quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The situation of conclavists, who set up a rival pope, is obviously different: there is then a schism, whichever side you blame for it. Esoglou (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


Please cite source. 128.2.118.172 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


There are obvious historical examples of elections imposed by Holy Roman Emperors and elections at the time of the Great Western Schism, but there is no point in citing them. You must be new to Wikipedia. Read WP:BURDEN, which tells you: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It is you who want to put a statement in Wikipedia. For that, you must be able to cite "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented" (a quotation from WP:OR). Note the word "directly": an argument or interpretation that you yourself base on material such as you give above is not enough. Not everyone will agree with your original-research argument or interpretation. WP:SYN, which is part of WP:OR, perhaps merits particular attention. Esoglou (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


I justified my edit with the sources cited in the reference, which I have also posted at the beginning of this thread. I see you changed the phrasing back to "Traditionalist Catholic" at the beginning of the article and cited a source.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1056
While not as authoritative as the Vatican, I did enjoy the article and I think it is a good citation insofar as it helps explain Church teachings. Something I don't understand is why you are using it to justify calling sedevacantists "Traditionalist Catholics". Indeed, the article justifies calling them schismatics or apostates more than anything else. The first sentence from your source:
"Since the time of the Second Vatican Council and the changes it brought, a considerable number of disaffected traditional Catholics have joined schismatic sects such as the Society of St. Pius X (founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre) and the sedevacantists (who believe, for dubious reasons explained later, that the Chair of Peter is currently vacant)."
So we apparently agree that my original formulation was accurate: that "sedevacantists are apostates (some of whom were formally Catholics) who claim that ..." We can change "apostates" to "schismatics" if that term more accurately reflects the origins of sedevacantists, if you want. But on reflection I guess those are loaded terms and we can just resort to "people". What do you think? 128.2.118.172 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Have you read WP:NPOV? There is more than one point of view on whether the Society of St. Pius X is actually in schism. In Wikipedia you cannot limit the exposition to one view alone: you will also have to include the view outlined, for instance, here. Esoglou (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I already made that distinction here.Robert314 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Failed Verification: Sedevacantists are Catholics[edit]

These two sources:

  1. ^ R. Scott Appleby, Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America (Indiana University Press 1995 ISBN 9780253329226), p. 257
  2. ^ Martin E. Marty, R. Scott Appleby, Fundamentalisms Observed (University of Chicago Press 1994 ISBN 9780226508788), p. 88

are being used to substantiate the statement that Sedevacantists are Catholics. However, verifications with the source do not hold up the claim. Both sources take pains to point out that Sedevacantist organizations are in schism with the Catholic Church, and more importantly, that "a tiny minority if Traditionalist Catholics are Sedevacantists" the converse isn't true, i.e. that one isn't a Catholic by being a Sedevacantist. The sources claim that some Catholics are Sedevacantists, but not the other way around. Robert314 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What the article states is: "Sedevacantism is the position held by a minority of Traditionalist Catholics ..." And you yourself say: "Both sources take pains to point out ... that "a tiny minority if of Traditionalist Catholics are Sedevacantists". So what's your complaint? Don't the sources say the same thing as the article? Esoglou (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Both what I am saying and the sources are saying is that while there is a non-empty intersection of the two groups, sedevacantists qua sedevacantism aren't catholics. Sometimes catholics dabble in sedevacantism, or even outright become sedevacantists in which case their status as catholics is in jeopardy pending certain automatic excommunication statutes. Maybe you are arguing that some sedevacantists can give valid baptisms. That is certainly true, even in the apostolic sense (sometimes). However, they aren't catholic unless the baptisms are also licit. For more on that see Valid but illicit. For example, the Othodox give valid but illicit baptisms from the Catholic point of view, but that doesn't make them catholic.Robert314 (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
As long as you are only trying to turn Wikipedia into a discussion forum, a soapbox, there is no point in continuing to talk here. You have raised no objection to what the article says, namely that a minority of Traditionalist Catholics hold a sedevacantist position. Off-topic talking about what the article does not say is a waste of time. If you want the article to state that sedevacantists are not Catholics, just find a reliable source that actually says "sedevacantists are not Catholics" (not just articles that say something that you interpret as meaning, not saying, that sedevacantists are not Catholics) and insert it in the article. Esoglou (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Esoglou, I understand that you've had had similar problems before with Eastern Orthodoxy, but I hope we can discuss this. I've already given you sufficient sources, what I am doing now is trying to understand where you are coming from. Your sources don't verify your claims, but instead of us having a revert war, I am just marking the disputed claims and referring interested editors to this discussion until a consensus can be reached. Robert314 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Esoglou, please don't make edits until this is resolved. While you want to remove my "Failed verification" tags, I think that the statement should be changed altogether. If you want, we could submit this for a third opinion. Robert314 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Verification-failed tags and restoration of unsourced statement[edit]

By this edit Robert314 has

  1. reattached a "Verification failed" tag to the article's statement that sedevacantism is a position held by a minority of Traditionalist Catholics, in spite of his admission that the two sources cited in support of this statement about Traditionalist Catholics "take pains to point out ... that 'a tiny minority if (sic, recte of) Traditionalist Catholics are Sedevacantists'", precisely what the article states.
  2. restored a statement about "conclavists" that has been questioned and not defended for half a year, without making any attempt to defend it when he restored it.

Robert314 seems to imagine that, at the disputed point, the article is saying that sedevacantists are Catholics. Perhaps Robert314 believes Traditionalist Catholics are not Catholics. I must presume good faith on his part. Otherwise I would imagine he was acting as a troll. The only thing that, at the disputed point, the article states is that some (a minority) of "Traditionalist Catholics" are sedevacantists, and the sources cited say exactly the same thing. So I quite fail to see the logic of Robert314's insistent attaching of verification-failed tags to the sources.

I also fail to see the logic of Robert314's action in restoring the statement about "conclavists".

The above sections of this talk page show that there has been no meeting of minds between Robert314 and myself. I have therefore requested a third opinion, something that Robert314 has indicated he would welcome. It may take some time to get a response to the request, but for the present I let Robert314's edit stand. I would of course also welcome interventions by any editors who happen to view this talk page and would be good enough to express an opinion on the logic of Robert314's actions. Esoglou (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


I have just seen that my request for a third opinion has been removed from the list of such requests on the grounds that Pseudo-Richard has already responded. So would Pseudo-Richard, or someone else, please give an opinion on the two questions that I have raised here (verification-failed tags on the statement that some Traditionalist Catholics hold sedevacantist views, and the restoration of a questioned statement about "conclavists"), rather than on the question whether sedevacantists are or are not Catholics. Esoglou (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

An opinion on the "Sedevacantists are not Catholic"[edit]

[Edit conflict with the 3O request]

I will offer an opinion here (the act of my doing so, by the way, disqualifies this issue from WP:Third opinion so further dispute resolution should go to WP:RFC if necessary).

NB: I have worked with Esoglou in the past on a number of occasions and have generally supported his stance on content while not supporting his often contentious interaction style.

It would be ideal if someone could find a source that asserts that "Sedevacantists are Catholics". Or conversely, a source that asserts "Sedevacantists are NOT Catholics". All of this back-and-forth argument is due to original research regarding the reasoning of Wikipedia editors on the question.

That said, I think that, in this dispute, Esoglou is right and Robert314 is wrong and offer my own original research in support of my opinion.

Taking the broadest issue first, Robert314 commented "For example, the Othodox give valid but illicit baptisms from the Catholic point of view, but that doesn't make them catholic." I'm not sure if the last use of "catholic" was deliberately put in lowercase or not. If it was intended to be lowercase, this assertion opens up a huge can of worms regarding the definition of "catholic". I would counsel staying away from this line of argument for now. The Orthodox would assert that they are fully "catholic" as would the Sedevacantists.

Me personally, I would argue that the Sedevacantists are schismatic but, based on my admittedly scant knowledge of the conflict, it seems to me that the Catholic Church (especially under Benedict XVI) has leaned over backwards to bring them back in the fold and not to brand them as schismatic.

In section 19 above, anon IP editor 128.2.118.172 (possibly identical to User:Robert314) cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church to assert that Sedevacantists are not "Catholic". However, there is nothing in the quoted text that asserts that those who do not accept the Pope are "not Catholics". Using very loose language, I would argue that those who do not accept the Pope's authority may not be very "good" Catholics but they are Catholics nonetheless if their baptism was valid and they have not formally requested to leave the Church.

We should not confuse the licit nature of baptism with the licit nature of ordinations and elevation to the episcopacy.

Earlier in this section, Robert314 makes reference to "automatic excommunication statutes". My understanding is that excommunication does not expel you from the Catholic Church and it does not make you "not Catholic". See section on "The Catholic Church" in the Wikipedia article on Excommunication.

It is also important to recognize the difference between claims to authority vs. separatism. A separatist wants to separate from a country or an organization like the Catholic Church. The Confederate States of America is a good example; the CSA never claimed to be the rightful government of the United States of America. They just wanted to leave that country and form their own. In contrast, the Orthodox do not deny the legitimacy of the Pope as the Bishop of Rome;they just argue that he is overreaching his rightful authority in asserting his supremacy over the other patriarchs. They are not separatists. In some sense, they are not even schismatics; they just have a different view of what the lines of authority are.

My understanding is that Sedevacantists are not separatists. They are more like those who deny the legitimacy of a monarch and support a "pretender to the throne" of a monarchy. Thus, situation of the sedevacantists share some similarities with those of the Orthodox. They assert that they are fully catholic and that they are, in fact, the true "catholic" church and that the current Catholic Church is in error.

Arguments over doctrine can lead to schism but schism, by itself, doesn't make you "not Catholic". Denying the humanity of Christ puts you outside the Catholic Church but denying the legitimacy of the current Pope does not.

Sorry if the flow of reasoning and the language in the above are a bit sloppy. My knowledge of this topic is weak and my time is limited. If this does not suffice to resolve the issue, you may wish to issue an RFC.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for intervening. My own position is that we cannot put in Wikipedia, as something based on what the reliable sources as a whole say, either that sedevacantists are or are not Catholics. An excommunicate is still a member of the Catholic Church. The situation of sedevacantists need not be compared with that of Eastern Orthodox, which would mean that they are not members of the Roman Catholic Church. It could be compared with that of the entire Sacred College of Cardinals, which, after electing Urban VI in questionable circumstances, on 20 September 1378 unanimously "disavowed the April election as done under duress and therefore invalid" (p. 147 of this book), thereby declaring that the see of Rome had remained vacant since the death of Gregory XI on 26 March 1378. Did they thereby cease to be Catholics? Of course, I have my personal opinion on the question of whether sedevacantists are or are not Catholics, but I believe that in Wikipedia terms it can neither be affirmed nor denied that they are. In any case, that has nothing to do with the placing of verification-failed tags on a statement about a distinct matter, namely the statement that some Traditionalist Catholics - be they Catholics or not Catholics - are sedevacantists. Esoglou (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I was going to offer a 3O but Pseudo-Richard beat me to it, so you might consider this a "fourth opinion". Though I'm not sure I agree with Pseudo-Richard's reasoning, I agree with his conclusion. I'd suggest that the real debate should not be occurring here, but at Traditionalist Catholic because the use of the term in this article merely refers back to that article, which defines the term. The actual question is whether, as has been discussed by these same editors there, sedevacantists ought to be included in the Traditionalist Catholic article. I believe that they should (I express no opinion about the conclavists or integrists) because they are clearly described using that term in the Fundamentalisms Observed book, a clearly reliable source, mentioned in the last section above. (The exact quote is, from pg. 88, "Although a minority position among traditionalist Catholics, the sedevacantist position has precipitated considerable conflict within the movement." It is viewable online through Google Books.) Sedevantism is clearly discussed in the context of the traditional Catholic movement in the other work quoted above as well, another clearly reliable source, which is also available online, with the clearest quotation being, at pg. 257, "The question of sedevacantism is one of the most devisive issues within the traditionalist movement." In both cases, I believe that a close reading reveals that the author, William D. Dingess, shared by both publications is using the terms traditional Catholic and traditional Catholic movement as a portmanteau term without making a judgement or statement as to whether the traditionalists, of whatever variety, are or are not "true Catholics". The fact, however, that reliable sources use the term "traditional Catholic" to include the sedevacantists is sufficient to include them in the Traditionalist Catholic article. (I would note that the Terminology section of the Traditionalist Catholic article makes it clear that article is using the term in a similar portmanteau manner, which helps dispel any confusion, but isn't really necessary.) Once that is established, then the usage of the linked term Traditionalist Catholic is clearly appropriate and the use of verification-failed tags is inappropriate in my opinion. I do feel that though the article title Traditionalist Catholic is appropriate and acceptable, that "Catholic traditionalism" or "Traditional Catholic movement" might be more appropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your response to the precise question whether sedevacantists are included under "Traditionalist Catholics", as the article states. I think I can now remove the "Failed verification" tags placed by an editor in spite of admitting that the sources do say what the article says. Esoglou (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories?[edit]

Someone added the Template:Conspiracy theories navbox. I don't think most Sedevacantism falls in that category since many proponents claim things such as invalid rites not so much a conspiracy. The word conspiracy does not appear elsewhere in the article. If nobody can explain why it is there, it's going to be eliminated. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 08:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Arrangement[edit]

Having no expertise or investment in this subject, I would like to suggest that a different arrangement of the article might be useful. It might be easier to follow for people like me who are unfamiliar with the topic if the "Early History" and "Positions" sections were switched. As it is, the article launches into a description of the various strands of Sedevacantism without explaining the rationale for the movement's emergence. Since there seems to be a great deal of strong feeling about this topic, however, I didn't want to make the change myself. Gothamscholar (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)