Talk:Sedevacantism

message: 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, 26 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-sedevacantist arguments 

message: Hello. I am disputing that Bp. Alfredo Méndez-Gonzalez was a sedevacantist as is claimed in the page.
1. There is no evidence that he was a sedevacantist.
2. Although he consecrated the sedevacantist Fr. Clarence Kelly, Bp. Kelly, defending Bp. Mendez, in response to the then-Fr. Donald Sanborn, admits that Bp. Mendez probably may not have been a sedevacantist. He writes:
"If Bishop Mendez considered John Paul II to be a valid pope, he increasingly came to regard him as a bad pope. If he used his name in the Canon of the Mass, it was not to stay in the good graces of his superiors or to keep a position of importance, as was the case with Fr. Sanborn. Bishop Mendez did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. He did not do it out of expediency. Fr. Sanborn should realize by now that Catholics who do not agree with his position on the status of John Paul II, whatever that position might be at any given moment, are still Catholics if they have the true Faith. It is simply wrong to elevate one's opinion on the subject to the level of unchangeable dogmatic truth." (Bp. Kelly. "The Sacred and the Profane". 1997.)
3. As stated, this was in response to the then-Fr. Sanborn who wrote:
"He [Bp. Kelly] consents, however, to be consecrated by a bishop [Bp. Mendez] who is in open communion with the Novus Ordo, which Fr. Kelly has repeatedly called a non-catholic sect." (Fr. Sanborn. "Letter to the Catholic People". April 1995.)
Both sides then do not claim that Bp. Mendez was a sedevacantist, though it would have been beneficial to Bp. Kelly, who personally knew well and was consecrated by Bp. Mendez, if Bp. Kelly claimed that Bp. Mendez was a sedevacantist if he knew it to be true. King Pius (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: if no RS states what Mendez's religion was, then it is better not to say anything anout his religion. Veverve (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. King Pius (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bp. Mendez and sedevacantism 

message: The view of sedevacantists is ambiguously described in the first sentence of the article: "the present occupier of the Holy See is not a valid pope due to the mainstream Catholic church's alleged espousal of modernism and that, for lack of a valid pope, the See of Rome is vacant." This could mean "the main body of believers is modernist, so the Pope, a traditionalist, lacks authority", or "the main body of believers and the Pope they've appointed are modernists who've abandoned the true faith, so he cannot claim to be a true Catholic."
Ok, reading further into the article, I realise the latter meaning is intended. But it would be good to have it made clear in the lead. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 90% of people only read the lead (or something like that) so if it isn't clear just in the lead I support improving the phrasing. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have tried to improve the lede. Veverve (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would re-add "alleged" (or other alternatives), as it is important to point out that it is in the sedevacantist's opinion that the current Pope espouses heresies. Removing the alleged makes it be said in wiki-voice. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought about it, but it is redundant with the "which holds that" which clearly states it is the position's opinion. Veverve (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough, . In any case, if it becomes an issue I guess we'll hear about it in the talk page sooner or later :P. For now this works. Thanks for making the edits ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Catholic Resistance and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 7#Catholic Resistance until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Veverve (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Catholic Resistance" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]