What I meant was the ways they justify this or that relating to the belief I was discussing.

They were meant to establish the fact that sedevacantism is minimally perverting “a handful of Dogmas.” Therefore, the fact that they believe this or that bears nothing upon the fact that their belief is incorrect and hence minimally proximate to heresy…

There is a point to my bringing it up — apparently some of the fringe traditionalists believe that Benedict has really been elected Pope but that since (in their theory) the Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecration (and of sacerdotal and diaconal ordination???) is invalid, he is not yet a bishop. So he has been rightly elected, but is in some sort of limbo till he gets properly ordained. Once again, this is all bogus, but one should be able to refute and evangelize such folks. So I am interested how Fr. Benson got around a similar dilemma — apparently, Lucy, no one to consecrate him to the episcopate. Thanks.

There’s an interesting development in Robert Hugh Benson’s ‘Lord of the World’ which includes this very scenario. Not only are the Pope and Rome destroyed but all the bishops of the world who were in conclave. Except, naturally, one poor priest who unbeknownst to him has been appointed bishop the day before.

Whoops — they deny that it is valid. They claim that it is invalid.

I did not receive your last post until after I sent the post that follows it. IF you define “sedevacantist” as merely “the so-called pope in Rome isn’t the real one,” then yes, everyone you’ve mentioned is in the sedevacantist camp. They all believe that the See fell vacant for awhile at least. (Unless they hold to the Siri hypothesis . . .) But your definition is faulty when it comes to the alibists’ position on whether the See is *currently* filled or not.

“The other point I tried to make was more icing on the cake; that these sedevacantist “Pope fill-ins” aren’t in actuality “Bishops of Rome,” residing in goofball locations and certainly only speaking on behalf of their own schismatic flock, and obviously not functioning as a Bishop of Rome, regardless of title.”

To summarize my earlier point, I think that once these people have swallowed the camel (the Pope is some guy in hicksville) they’re not going to strain out the gnat (they guy exercises no control in Rome itself).

They buy into a major part of the sedevacantist position — acceptance of Vatican II invalidates claims to the Apostolic See. That is how (so the theory goes) the see fell vacant for them to fill it. But they DO NOT hold that the see is vacant now, as I have tried to tell you several times now.

I hold that one of the purposes of this discussion is to learn how to approach both sets of people in apologetic contexts. At least that is part of my intention. Ergo, learning the difference is important since it’s important to them. From my own end, it matters little whether one is an atheist or an Anglican — but get into a conversation with either one, and they’ll perceive a profound difference!

Granted. But I thought you wanted to detail exactly where they go wrong, with a possible view toward apologetic activity toward them. If you walk up to a sedevacantist and say, “You deny that the Bishopric of Rome and the Papacy are indissolubly linked!” they will laugh at you. They don’t deny it in theory. So, as I’ve said, you won’t make any headway this way. I see shades here of past arguments — you need to know your opponent very, very well. If you misidentify their errors, they will dismiss you, and rightly.

I’m not defending them, I’m actually trying to help you be better armed against their real arguments, instead of some straw man.

“My point was that there is a Bishop who is publically the Bishop of Rome. This would suggest this is the Pope, regardless of what a sedevacantist thinks, based on Dogma #1.”

But if you start with the premise that Benedict XVI is the Bishop of Rome, then you’ve begged the question. These people explicitly deny that he is the Bishop of Rome, so they simply won’t grant the premise.

Now, if you argued from #2 that there will always be a Pope, THEN you would be in the right. And if you argued from #3 that the whole Church cannot be deceived as to who the Pope is, THEN you would gain ground. Maybe if you worked #1 and #3 in tandem you would go somewhere, but not with #1 alone. Once again, I’m really trying to give constructive criticism here on how better to refute sedevacantists, I’m not defending them. And if you reject my constructive criticism, well, whatever.

“If a sedevacantists simply wanted to disprove that the Pope was not the Pope, then maybe they would have to defeat this Dogma. In other words they must demonstrate that the apparent Pope is neither a Bishop nor a Bishop of Rome. This is foolish…”

Well, of course it’s foolish. So is Lutheranism. If you want to begin a conversation with a sedevacantist with “that’s foolish,” then fine. But look, lots of these folks deny that the sacrament of Orders in the Novus Ordo is invalid, so, yeah, they will — foolishly — deny that Benedict is a bishop. They would not have said this about any of his predecessors, though, as (if I recall) they all became bishops under the Old Rite. And yes, they deny that Benedict XVI is the Bishop of Rome in the *very same breath* they deny he’s pope. So you simply won’t make them budge unless you work #2 and #3.

“The other point I tried to make was more icing on the cake; that these sedevacantist “Pope fill-ins” aren’t in actuality “Bishops of Rome,” residing in goofball locations and certainly only speaking on behalf of their own schismatic flock, and obviously not functioning as a Bishop of Rome, regardless of title (”Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” distinguishes between titles and the actual location, the latter being dogma).”

Johnboy, did you even read what I wrote? Please re-read it (preferably not at work, but when you have time). The sedevacantists DO NOT have fill-in Popes. The sedevacantists and the “alibists” are two different sets of people. For instance, if you told a sedevacantist, “You know, you guys think the real Pope is some dope in Kansas,” they would laugh at you, and rightly. Sedevacantists, by definition, don’t think this. When arguing, you need to know your opponents’ actual position, no matter how stupid. Consider yourself a doctor — your diagnosis needs to be more detailed than merely “cancer.” You need to know which cancer. If you tell a woman she has prostate cancer, you’ll quickly be out of a job. Same goes with apologetics — “Know thy enemy.”

Yes, you are absolutely correct that these people in goofball locations aren’t the Pope. But don’t you think some of the schismatic locals in Rome in the 1300s said to themselves, “The real Pope can’t be in some goofball location like Avignon. That’s in France! We have a real Bishop, functioning as the Bishop of Rome right here with us. So of course he’s the real deal.” Er, wrong! The real Pope was in a goofball location (Avignon) and he had virtually no control over his actual archdiocese back in Rome. And both the sedevacantist and alibist goofballs will tell you all about Avignon if you get into an argument with them, so you’d better know your stuff.

Furthermore, IF these alibist goofballs accept that their antipope is really the Sovereign Pontiff of the whole world despite everything else, they are certainly going to buy into the notion that he is also Bishop of Rome too. They’ll respond in kind: the evil world rejects him, he’s in exile, this is analogous to the Avignon Papacy, etc., etc. You need to start with #2 and #3, and then, once they’re softened up, #1 might help sway them. Otherwise, I don’t see how you’ll make much headway.

Perhaps technically they would be Albi-whatevers, but in my book they are still sede-vacantists (primarily due to their primary objection–>the seat of Peter is vacant…the rest is mere consequence).

The other point I tried to make was more icing on the cake; that these sedevacantist “Pope fill-ins” aren’t in actuality “Bishops of Rome,” residing in goofball locations and certainly only speaking on behalf of their own schismatic flock, and obviously not functioning as a Bishop of Rome, regardless of title (”Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” distinguishes between titles and the actual location, the latter being dogma).

As I used to think along these lines before (thanks be to God!) I repented and reformed, you can trust what I have said so far about the sedevacantist position.

Of course, as soon as it became safe for Popes to rule from Rome again, presumably they would return to their actual diocese — or at least it would be incumbent upon them to do so.

Now, could one refute the “real-pope-is-in-Kansas” people by saying that their Pope isn’t “from Rome,” as you put it? As I see it, you couldn’t make an absolute, rigorous argument against them on this ground. Very few Popes in modern times (Pius XII being one notable exception) are native Romans. Of course you know that, what with our Polish and German pontiffs of late — I’m just laying some ground work. But does the real Pope have to be present in Rome, or even have set foot in the Eternal City? No. During the 1300s, the so-called “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” the valid Popes ruled from Avignon, France, while the anti-Popes mis-ruled from Rome. The Avignon Popes were the real Bishops of Rome, but the schismatic anti-popes were firmly lodged in the Eternal City and wouldn’t allow the return of the real claimant. So there is nothing impossible or even improbable about the true Popes being absent from Rome, even for decades. Let’s say Al-Queda — God forbid! — destroys Rome and everything in it. The Pope might go into exile in North America, let’s say. Even if the real Popes ruled from St. Louis, for centuries on end, they would still be Bishops of Rome and not of St. Louis.

So the “real-pope-lives-in-Kansas” people are wrong, but I don’t think that they violate the rule concerning the Pope being the bishop of Rome.