579:"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.
368:
292:
265:
437:
447:
416:
380:
302:
203:
234:
794:
1045:@Veverve, kindly be specific. I have no clue what you are disputing and will not keep guessing. If "alleged occupiers" is a specialised theological term then please provide a source to illustrate to a mere mortal. Vatican II does not need a source - that is already there at the start of the next section ("Origins"). The purpose of the intro is to cover the defining issues.
658:
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
828:
The first sentence would be more clear if it expressed that
Sedevacantists believe the doctrinal offices of the church have been subverted to spread heresy. My proposed edit would read "Sedevacantism is a Conspiracy Theory which holds that there has been no Pope since the Second Vatican Council.
1199:
You do realise that to say "the alleged occupiers of the Holy See are not valid popes" is logically circular? If they are alleged (and your understanding of "alleged" amounts to "not valid"), then that is the same as not being valid. You only make the redundancy worse by saying that the seat is
891:
which did recognize
Benedict XVI and all those before him, only to declare Benedict excommunicated in 2011 and only then declare a state of sedevacantism. Both of these are clearly sedevacantist in nature, yet have differing conspiracy theories to explain how and when the state of sedevacantism
543:
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
1097:
With regard to "alleged occupiers" my issue is that it is used in
Knowledge's voice. If you look at the sentence, it presents "alleged occupiers" as a neutral descriptor, whereas it is rather part of the sedevacantist position and needs to be reported as such. Theology may not be politics, but
883:, but instead is best described as a doctrinal position, as the current article states. While many groups adhering to sedevacantism may also hold conspiracy theories regarding how this situation came to be, the two are fundamentally separate, as I hope the two following examples will show. The
592:
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.
659:"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."
829:
Theories vary if Pius XII or John XXIII was the last Pope, but
Sedevacantists agree that the Pope loses his office by expressing heresy." "Conspiracy Theory" is the best term I can think of but maybe someone has a better idea. Thoughts?
975:
Please let me know any objections - if I don't hear back from you I shall go with your version of the introductory definition with the three corrections as above, and restore the deleted sections on succession and archbishop Thuc.
1106:
not recognising each other seems a decent analogy. Which is why from a neutral point of view it is a schism, a splitting into two incompatible parts of which each repudiates the other, which nonetheless affects them both.
589:"He consents, however, to be consecrated by a bishop 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.)
945:(1) "Closely aligned with the sedevacantist issue is the question of episcopal succession. This concern highlights the problem of legitimation faced by traditionalist Catholics..." (Dinges, ""We Are What You Were"", in
723:
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.
960:(By the way, both chapters ought to be cited appropriately, not by volume but by contribution, which I had overlooked to correct.) Is your disagreement with me that sedevacantists need an unbroken connection to the
153:
1158:
Sedevacantism is a traditionalist
Catholic movement which holds that the Holy See has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII due to the espousal of one or more heresies by his alleged successors in
930:
The phrase "alleged occupiers" needs to be changed to "occupiers" because this is a factual issue, not one of recognition. The current Pope does sit in Rome, whether he is perceived as legitimate or not.
1177:
Your definition proposal is more confusing than the current one (Vatican City is not the Holy See and even less the
Italian city of Rome). Sometimes, it is better to add redundancy than to be unclear.
1195:
Sedevacantism is a traditionalist
Catholic movement which holds that the Holy See has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII due to the espousal of one or more heresies by his alleged successors
1163:
With regard to Thuc, I will hold off on this until I have verified the lineages of sedevacantism, but I insist that the principal figures of the movement should be named in the introductory section.
964:
hierarchy, or that they need any pope at all (which I am not saying except for the fact that it makes things more difficult), or that it poses a difficulty? And is it with my characterisation of
1191:
Perhaps some nuance eludes me but Rome is the metonymy of the Holy See for all I know, and
Vatican, while sovereign, is just an enclave within Rome. Then I propose (as I originally intended):
887:, held by some sedevacantists, states that Giuseppe Siri was in fact elected Pope and was suppressed by hostile forces, and that this is why the See is vacant today. Starkly different is the
784:
952:(2) "Principal among this sedevacantist segment are priests ordained bishops by the former Vietnamese archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc" (Dinges, "Roman Catholic Traditionalism", in
1136:: I get what you mean. However, the issue is already difficult to explain to the common reader with this wording. Do you have a better wording that would not confuse the common reader?
1094:
I would require more details if there is no schism, if the principal source of the continuity of episcopal succession is not Thuc, and if his politics is not relevant to the movement.
1124:
I would require more details if there is no schism, if the principal source of the continuity of episcopal succession is not Thuc, and if his politics is not relevant to the movement
847:
What reliable sources describe
Sedevacantism as such? Otherwise, it is OR and therefore unacceptable. We can only describe something the way other reliable source describe it.
806:
194:
147:
941:
Finally, since you have written that the sources "absolutely" do not say what I have added to the article, here are two relevant leads for you to consider verifying:
358:
798:
762:. 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^
818:
519:
907:
1134:
it presents "alleged occupiers" as a neutral descriptor, whereas it is rather part of the sedevacantist position and needs to be reported as such
923:
with the seat in Rome. The fact that it denies that this church is a legitimate Catholic Church does not make the problem go away - compare the
938:
since it is its doctrine that is being repudiated - it is central to the existence of the movement and needs to be mentioned from the outset.
1272:
1262:
949:, 257) (to any thinking person this is an immediate question - where does authority come from in the movement? who are its leading figures?);
398:
348:
770:
753:
732:
718:
693:
662:
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.
1282:
79:
987:
1292:
1277:
509:
473:
888:
677:
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.
645:
624:
548:
538:
324:
1297:
1257:
1200:
vacant because, well, the occupiers are only alleged. There is no real explanation happening there, just beating of the drum.
602:
1267:
85:
44:
168:
901:
553:
481:
202:
135:
1010:
The phrase "alleged occupiers" needs to be changed to "occupiers" because this is a factual issue, not one of recognition
1287:
802:
786:
744:
I thought about it, but it is redundant with the "which holds that" which clearly states it is the position's opinion.
315:
270:
30:
1154:
The current definition unnecessarily repeats the terms "Holy See/See of Rome" and "valid pope". My proposal would be:
393:
275:
871:
580:
477:
1130:
reflexion and criteria. Whatever you claim must be supported by a reliable source, not by your original research.
99:
1226:
1209:
1186:
1172:
1149:
1116:
1089:
1054:
1040:
838:
485:
461:
421:
129:
104:
20:
1215:
You do realise that to say "the alleged occupiers of the Holy See are not valid popes" is logically circular?
74:
245:
190:
125:
671:
65:
185:
1074:
Vatican II does not need a source - that is already there at the start of the next section ("Origins")
615:
if no RS states what Mendez's religion was, then it is better not to say anything anout his religion.
559:
834:
809:
until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
767:
729:
687:
175:
897:
323:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
109:
935:
385:
251:
919:? It is for all intents and purposes separated from the main body of the currently existing
1205:
1168:
1112:
1050:
983:
830:
823:
763:
739:
725:
704:
679:
141:
1027:: my issue is using reliable sources and faithfully stating what they say on a WP article.
972:, or with making him the single most important figure of origin for episcopal continuity?
8:
893:
641:
598:
307:
233:
55:
70:
1222:
1217:: yes, but I hold that it is better to be redundant than to risk a miscomprehension.
1182:
1145:
1085:
1036:
880:
867:
814:
749:
714:
667:
653:
620:
51:
1062:
kindly be specific. I have no clue what you are disputing and will not keep guessing
1003:
161:
1201:
1164:
1108:
1046:
995:
979:
924:
920:
452:
1021:: what you wrote on the WP article is absolutely not what you have quoted there.
576:, admits that Bp. Mendez probably may not have been a sedevacantist. He writes:
969:
851:
637:
610:
594:
573:
569:
545:
213:
1251:
855:
24:
934:
I also do not see any reason for removing the reference in the intro to the
1218:
1178:
1141:
1081:
1032:
912:
863:
810:
759:
745:
710:
700:
663:
631:
616:
320:
472:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
367:
884:
217:
807:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 7#Catholic Resistance
218:
586:
3. As stated, this was in response to the then-Fr. Sanborn who wrote:
961:
468:
446:
379:
215:
291:
264:
436:
415:
301:
1103:
1076:: I agree on that and I have added the information to the lede.
916:
797:
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
572:, Bp. Kelly, defending Bp. Mendez, in response to the then-Fr.
793:
219:
1012:: it is a theological issue so "alleged occupiers" is better.
965:
1099:
1019:
here are two relevant leads for you to consider verifying
1002:
Your first paragraph is OR, I have nothing else to say,
850:
How is it a conspiracy theory and not simply a form of
1015:
A mention of Vatican II, like anything, needs sources.
160:
565:
1. There is no evidence that he was a sedevacantist.
1068:
alleged occupiers" is a specialised theological term
442:
375:
319:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
297:
15:
568:2. Although he consecrated the sedevacantist Fr.
1249:
544:Cardinals could not decide on a single Pontiff.
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
562:was a sedevacantist as is claimed in the page.
466:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on
908:Schismatic character and other disputed terms
879:I do not believe this fits the definition of
174:
889:Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church
231:
1250:
1064:: on what do you require more details?
854:, or of conservative split (like the
1273:High-importance Catholicism articles
1263:Low-importance Christianity articles
458:This article is within the scope of
313:This article is within the scope of
227:
250:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
13:
1025:Is your disagreement with me that
709:I have tried to improve the lede.
366:
333:Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity
14:
1309:
1283:WikiProject Christianity articles
336:Template:WikiProject Christianity
1293:Low-importance Religion articles
1278:WikiProject Catholicism articles
805:. This discussion will occur at
792:
785:"Catholic Resistance" listed at
445:
435:
414:
378:
300:
290:
263:
232:
201:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1070:: it is not a specialised term.
558:Hello. I am disputing that Bp.
539:Counter-sedevacantist arguments
514:This article has been rated as
353:This article has been rated as
646:07:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
625:04:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
603:02:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
494:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion
1:
1298:WikiProject Religion articles
1258:C-Class Christianity articles
1227:08:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
497:Template:WikiProject Religion
391:This article is supported by
327:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1268:C-Class Catholicism articles
1210:02:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
1187:19:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
1173:17:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
1150:16:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
1117:15:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
1090:14:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
1055:14:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
1041:11:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
988:09:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
968:as an exceptionally staunch
902:02:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
872:16:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
839:16:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
771:15:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
754:14:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
733:14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
719:14:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
694:08:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
672:08:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
581:"The Sacred and the Profane"
554:Bp. Mendez and sedevacantism
7:
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
1314:
915:, how is the movement not
819:22:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
520:project's importance scale
359:project's importance scale
1288:C-Class Religion articles
549:03:11, 26 June 2005 (UTC)
513:
430:
374:
352:
285:
258:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
954:Fundamentalisms Observed
787:Redirects for discussion
484:standards, or visit the
316:WikiProject Christianity
801:and has thus listed it
560:Alfredo Méndez-Gonzalez
394:WikiProject Catholicism
936:Second Vatican Council
386:Catholic Church portal
371:
240:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1126:: again, this is but
370:
339:Christianity articles
195:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
758:That's fair enough,
462:WikiProject Religion
105:No original research
799:Catholic Resistance
308:Christianity portal
474:assess and improve
372:
246:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
881:conspiracy theory
824:Conspiracy Theory
534:
533:
530:
529:
526:
525:
500:Religion articles
488:for more details.
409:
408:
405:
404:
226:
225:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1305:
999:
796:
743:
708:
692:
690:
686:
682:
635:
614:
502:
501:
498:
495:
492:
486:wikiproject page
455:
450:
449:
439:
432:
431:
426:
418:
411:
410:
388:
383:
382:
341:
340:
337:
334:
331:
310:
305:
304:
294:
287:
286:
281:
278:
267:
260:
259:
243:
237:
236:
228:
220:
206:
205:
196:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1313:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1248:
1247:
993:
925:Arsenite Schism
921:Catholic Church
910:
831:JacobMaximilian
826:
790:
768:Please ping me!
764:A. C. Santacruz
740:A. C. Santacruz
737:
730:Please ping me!
726:A. C. Santacruz
705:A. C. Santacruz
698:
689:Please ping me!
688:
684:
680:
678:
656:
629:
608:
556:
541:
499:
496:
493:
490:
489:
453:Religion portal
451:
444:
424:
399:High-importance
384:
377:
338:
335:
332:
329:
328:
306:
299:
279:
273:
244:on Knowledge's
241:
222:
221:
216:
193:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1311:
1301:
1300:
1295:
1290:
1285:
1280:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1260:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1197:
1192:
1161:
1155:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1131:
1095:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1071:
1065:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1022:
1016:
1013:
1007:
970:anti-Communist
958:
957:
950:
909:
906:
905:
904:
894:Count Cherokee
877:
876:I must oppose.
874:
861:
860:
859:
852:Restorationism
848:
825:
822:
803:for discussion
789:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
655:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
574:Donald Sanborn
570:Clarence Kelly
555:
552:
540:
537:
532:
531:
528:
527:
524:
523:
516:Low-importance
512:
506:
505:
503:
457:
456:
440:
428:
427:
425:Low‑importance
419:
407:
406:
403:
402:
390:
389:
373:
363:
362:
355:Low-importance
351:
345:
344:
342:
325:the discussion
312:
311:
295:
283:
282:
280:Low‑importance
268:
256:
255:
249:
238:
224:
223:
214:
212:
211:
208:
207:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1310:
1299:
1296:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1286:
1284:
1281:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1266:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1253:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1198:
1196:
1193:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1135:
1132:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1105:
1101:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1011:
1008:
1005:
1001:
1000:
997:
992:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
971:
967:
963:
955:
951:
948:
944:
943:
942:
939:
937:
932:
928:
926:
922:
918:
914:
903:
899:
895:
890:
886:
882:
878:
875:
873:
869:
865:
862:
857:
856:Old Catholics
853:
849:
846:
845:
843:
842:
841:
840:
836:
832:
821:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
795:
788:
772:
769:
765:
761:
757:
756:
755:
751:
747:
741:
736:
735:
734:
731:
727:
722:
721:
720:
716:
712:
706:
702:
697:
696:
695:
691:
683:
676:
675:
674:
673:
669:
665:
660:
647:
643:
639:
633:
628:
627:
626:
622:
618:
612:
607:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
590:
587:
584:
582:
577:
575:
571:
566:
563:
561:
551:
550:
547:
536:
521:
517:
511:
508:
507:
504:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
470:
465:
464:
463:
454:
448:
443:
441:
438:
434:
433:
429:
423:
420:
417:
413:
412:
400:
397:(assessed as
396:
395:
387:
381:
376:
369:
365:
364:
360:
356:
350:
347:
346:
343:
326:
322:
318:
317:
309:
303:
298:
296:
293:
289:
288:
284:
277:
272:
269:
266:
262:
261:
257:
253:
247:
239:
235:
230:
229:
210:
209:
204:
200:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
25:Sedevacantism
22:
18:
17:
1214:
1194:
1157:
1133:
1127:
1123:
1073:
1067:
1061:
1024:
1018:
1009:
978:
974:
959:
953:
946:
940:
933:
929:
911:
827:
791:
661:
657:
591:
588:
585:
578:
567:
564:
557:
542:
535:
515:
476:articles to
467:
460:
459:
392:
354:
330:Christianity
321:Christianity
314:
271:Christianity
252:WikiProjects
198:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
947:Being Right
885:Siri Thesis
276:Catholicism
148:free images
31:not a forum
1252:Categories
1202:VampaVampa
1165:VampaVampa
1109:VampaVampa
1047:VampaVampa
996:VampaVampa
980:VampaVampa
917:schismatic
892:occurred.
844:I oppose.
1004:WP:BURDEN
681:Santacruz
654:Ambiguity
638:King Pius
611:King Pius
595:King Pius
583:. 1997.)
546:Iceberg3k
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1128:your own
962:pre-1958
491:Religion
469:Religion
422:Religion
199:180 days
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1219:Veverve
1179:Veverve
1142:Veverve
1082:Veverve
1033:Veverve
913:Veverve
864:Veverve
811:Veverve
760:Veverve
746:Veverve
711:Veverve
701:Maproom
664:Maproom
632:Veverve
617:Veverve
518:on the
357:on the
242:C-class
154:WP refs
142:scholar
956:, 88).
248:scale.
126:Google
1159:Rome.
636:Yes.
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1223:talk
1206:talk
1183:talk
1169:talk
1146:talk
1113:talk
1102:and
1086:talk
1051:talk
1037:talk
984:talk
966:Thuc
898:talk
868:talk
835:talk
815:talk
750:talk
715:talk
703:and
668:talk
642:talk
621:talk
599:talk
480:and
478:good
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1104:ROC
1100:PRC
510:Low
482:1.0
349:Low
176:TWL
1254::
1225:)
1208:)
1185:)
1171:)
1148:)
1115:)
1088:)
1053:)
1039:)
986:)
927:.
900:)
870:)
858:)?
837:)
817:)
766:⁂
752:)
728:⁂
717:)
670:)
644:)
623:)
601:)
401:).
274::
197::
156:)
54:;
1221:(
1204:(
1181:(
1167:(
1144:(
1111:(
1084:(
1049:(
1035:(
1006:.
998::
994:@
982:(
896:(
866:(
833:(
813:(
748:(
742::
738:@
713:(
707::
699:@
685:⁂
666:(
640:(
634::
630:@
619:(
613::
609:@
597:(
522:.
361:.
254::
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
