Talk:Sedevacantism

"Catholic Resistance" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Conspiracy Theory

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. 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? JacobMaximilian (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I oppose.

1. 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.
2. How is it a conspiracy theory and not simply a form of Restorationism, or of conservative split (like the Old Catholics)?

Veverve (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I must oppose.

I do not believe this fits the definition of conspiracy theory, 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 Siri Thesis, 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 Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church 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 occurred. Count Cherokee (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Schismatic character and other disputed terms

Veverve, how is the movement not schismatic? It is for all intents and purposes separated from the main body of the currently existing Catholic Church 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 Arsenite Schism.

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.

I also do not see any reason for removing the reference in the intro to the Second Vatican Council 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.

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:

• (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 Being Right, 257) (to any thinking person this is an immediate question - where does authority come from in the movement? who are its leading figures?);
• (2) "Principal among this [i.e. the entire] sedevacantist segment are priests ordained bishops by the former Vietnamese archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc" (Dinges, "Roman Catholic Traditionalism", in Fundamentalisms Observed, 88).

(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 pre-1958 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 Thuc as an exceptionally staunch anti-Communist, or with making him the single most important figure of origin for episcopal continuity?

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.

VampaVampa (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@VampaVampa:

1. Your first paragraph is OR, I have nothing else to say, WP:BURDEN.
2. The phrase "alleged occupiers" needs to be changed to "occupiers" because this is a factual issue, not one of recognition: it is a theological issue so "alleged occupiers" is better.
3. A mention of Vatican II, like anything, needs sources.
4. here are two relevant leads for you to consider verifying: what you wrote on the WP article is absolutely not what you have quoted there.
5. Is your disagreement with me that [...]: my issue is using reliable sources and faithfully stating what they say on a WP article.

Veverve (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@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. VampaVampa (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• kindly be specific. I have no clue what you are disputing and will not keep guessing: on what do you require more details?
• alleged occupiers" is a specialised theological term: it is not a specialised term.
• Vatican II does not need a source - that is already there at the start of the next section ("Origins"): I agree on that and I have added the information to the lede.

Veverve (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

With regard to "alleged occupiers" my issue is that it is used in Wikipedia'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 PRC and ROC 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. VampaVampa (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• 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: again, this is but your own reflexion and criteria. Whatever you claim must be supported by a reliable source, not by your original research.
• it presents "alleged occupiers" as a neutral descriptor, whereas it is rather part of the sedevacantist position and needs to be reported as such: 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?

Veverve (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The current definition unnecessarily repeats the terms "Holy See/See of Rome" and "valid pope". My proposal would be:

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 Rome.

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. VampaVampa (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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. Veverve (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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):

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

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 vacant because, well, the occupiers are only alleged. There is no real explanation happening there, just beating of the drum. VampaVampa (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You do realise that to say "the alleged occupiers of the Holy See are not valid popes" is logically circular?: yes, but I hold that it is better to be redundant than to risk a miscomprehension. Veverve (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Schuckardt in 1967?

Is there any evidence that Schuckardt forwarded a sedevacantist thesis as early as 1967, as the article claims? He was kicked out of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima in 1967 for opposing Vatican II and then founded his own "Fatima Crusade" in 1968, but I have not seen any evidence that he propose of thesis of sedevacantism at this early stage. We have Sáenz y Arriaga tenatively forwarding the idea in 1971 (The New Montinian Church) and then explicitly in 1973 (Sede Vacante), in terms of explict sedecavantism as a theory in writing, thats the earliest. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@JustAChurchMouse: thank you for noticing the problem and reporting it.

The claim about Schuckardt in 1967 was unsourced in this WP article, and it was not mentioned in his Francis Schuckardt WP article. I have thus removed this information about him. Veverve (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite

I think this page needs an overhaul so that it isn't assuming only the post-conciliar sedevacantism, but is also reflecting Benevacantism. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Attempting to put time and effort into developing the article but Ververve is going on a deletion spree, citing vaguely “not RS.” I am challenging this and hopefully dissuades further obstruction and we can get an actually decent article here.

(1) Sodalitium is the official journal of the Istituto Mater Boni Consilii, the leading Italian sedevacantist ogranisation.

What is your evidence that this is not a reliable source for this article when presenting uncontentious information covering the early history of sedevacantism? Quote specific policy, please. Or provide evidence that what they are saying is contested. If it is we can attribute it to this group specifically in the body of the text, but that does not appear necessary.

The journal fits the definition of a secondary source for this passage according to WP:RELIABLE, the source describes events in a secondary manner and cites sources within its journal. The use of the citation here in this manner is appropriate and reflects that. I think you are misunderstanding Wikipedia policy. According to WP:Secondary sources used do not even need to be independent.

You seem to be operating on the mistaken notion that we cannot use as a citation any sedevacantist organisation publication for any information touching the subject of sedevacantism. No matter how uncontentious the information. Nowhere does Wikipedia policy remotely say anything to that effect.

(2) CESNUR, the Center for Studies on New Religions, is a non-profit organisation based in Turin dedicated to the academic study of new religions.

In the article it is used to cite information about the existence of the Japanese sedecavantist group. Again, you randomly removed this citation and the information. Care to reference any ikipedia policy explaining why this is not a reliable source for the article? JustAChurchMouse (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

1) Sodalitium is WP:BIASED: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering".

Sodalitium has no reputation of reliability.

Sodalitium is also a WP:SPS (WP:RS/SPS).

As such, it cannot be a historical source for Sedevacantism.

2) see WP:CESNUR

Veverve (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

(1) Where is your evidence that the publication is biased? You have to prove that. This is like saying we cannot use any source by a Vatican linked university to report basic information about Francis or current Roman clerics or structures for example. If the source was being used to say "sedevacantism is definetly true and this is a source that proves", then you might have a point, but nobody is saying that in the article. All this is being used for is non-contentious historical chronology information. You need to prove that this source has no reputation for reliable and you need to prove that the source is contentious.

(2) "This is an information page. It is not an encyclopedic article, nor one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". Again, non-contentious information, such as the mere existence of this group, not used as a source to say "their beliefs are completely true and must be adhered to". Do you think they just make up the existence of the Japanese group of is this just WP:IDONTLIKEIT JustAChurchMouse (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You just had the evidence for the bias linked for you. There's a difference between a cult-affiliated pseudo-research institution and a press release from an established and generally reputable organization. You're edit warring on numerous pages. Stop and a get a consensus before reverting your things back to your changes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

1) you want to add this source, so you have to prove they are reliable, this is what a burden of proof is.

2) it is community consensus that CESNUR is not a RS. I have the backing of other previous conversations, you cannot ignore those simply in the name of your own personnal determination to add back your unreliably-sourced edits. Not all consensus are a policy, but those consensus matter nonetheless.

- Veverve (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want to question a specific reference as questionable then you need to add appropriate tags next to that citation and then you can try to prove why you don't think they are reliable source for that specific information (you haven't been able to do so). You are not proposing any serious constructive content additions to this article at all, so I am just going to carry on developing the article. You are deliberately trying to obstruct the development of this article because you have a bias or bee in your bonet against the subject matter and are trying to hide behind obscurantist Wikilawyering. This is not in the interests of spirit of what Wikipedia is for at all and does not aid in any constructive way in developing a quality article here. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@JustAChurchMouse: You're edit warring to reinsert sources the community has rejected. You're the one trying to wikilawyer, and poorly at that. There's an ANI thread open about you. Please respond there, offer some insight into your behavior and how you'll amend it, and stop edit warring. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"If you want to question a specific reference as questionable then you need to add appropriate tags next to that citation and then you can try to prove why you don't think they are reliable source for that specific information": what you are doing is a fallacy called shifting the burden of proof.

Also, please assume WP:GOODFAITH and refrain from personnal attacks. Veverve (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

As a sidenote, Le Sel de la Terre is not a RS (it is the journal of a fringe group of French Traditionalist Catholic Dominican monks not in communion with the Holy see, and their content is mostly biased).

The use of SSPX sources is only good to state what the sources says exactly when it comes to the position of the SSPX. But even with this: why add what the SSPX believes on Sedevacantism on this article? This is meant to be a very general article, so listing the opinion of such and such group should be avoided. We do not add what the SSPX's position is on most Cotholic general WP articles. Veverve (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

JustAChurchMouse, I've reverted your edits. Since editors have expressed significant concern over your edits especially the sourcing, you really need to settle this before continuing down this path. Also in my edit summary I mentioned some positive changes but I confused myself with the diffs so I'm less sure about positive changes. To be clear there might have been some but they're too confusing for me to work out so won't be doing anything with that. Anyway this is well outside an area I normally edit but even I know there are significant concerns with using CESNUR as a source and as noted above, checking RSPS shows it's point blank unreliable. Also we do need to use sources which present the official Vatican PoV minimally. However the Vatican is sometimes handsoff with their universities so it may be occasionally true that something from a Vatican linked university is acceptable for wider use. But I'd also note that you seem to be using what amounts to be primary sources way too much. If you can't find better sources for all these details you're trying to add, you should assume that means it's not something significant. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

To add to what @Nil Einne: has written: I also had to accept that most of what you read on these very niche topics in primary sources will never be used in a secondary source, and therefore will never be on WP. The reason is: most people do not care about these topics. And maybe they are right not to care, as most of what happens in these spheres in the fringes of society is often very minor and confusing to understand, and magnified by thoses within them relating these events. Veverve (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)