Replies

So far it appears that the "Catholic Caucus" designation should exclude Sedevacantists, Orthodox, SSPX and Inactive Catholics unless specifically invited by extending the label (abbreviations can be used.)

This means that the SSPX and Sedevacantists would not be lumped together but neither would the SSPX be considered non-disruptive to a Catholic Caucus. The SSPX would not be included by default in a Catholic Caucus until Bishop Fellay accepts the olive branch offered

Agree.

The problem with having a Catholic Caucus discussion is that certain 'groups' and individuals:

1) will run down the Pope, arising from a belief that he has lost his authority or that the seat is vacant...denies the infallibility of the pope.

2) deny the validity of VaticanII, this has the side-effect of anyone who denies the validity of VaticanII has by corrollary denied the infallibility of one or more Popes depending on the mindset and peculiarities of the particular protester. But by logic, they go hand in hand. Deny Vatican II, you've denied the infallibility of the Pope.

As it currently stands when someone denies the validity of the current Pope, the religion moderator will view them as non-Catholic. This may extend to one or more previous Popes?
As the religion moderator has stated that for the Catholic Caucus a belief of 'infallibility of the Pope' is a requisite. By logic, not believing in one or more of the modern Popes infallible should require exclusion from the Catholic Caucus.
However, running down Pope Francis should not be confused with an unbelief in the 'infallibility of the Pope'.

Religion Moderator:

So what happens when someone claims they are Catholic and runs down Vatican II as totally invalid, wrong, a mistake illicit,etc, but then they claim they are not either SSPX or Sedevacantist, etc. I would argue that they are for purposes of this forum SSPX or non-Catholic whether they assent to it or not.

/*************************************
What say you religion moderator?
/*************************************

In addition, liberal Catholic and "Traditional Catholics(specifically SSPX, Sedevacantists) agree on the interpretation of Vatican II. The liberals to their advantage, the 'T'raditionalists to the harm of the Church and their soul/spirituality. Liberals accept and embrace this false understanding (against a "hermenuetic of continuity"), the 'T'raditionalist views Vatican II as illicit, invalid. This 'Traditionalist'/Liberal labels are just labels of convenience and typing, a generalization not looking for arguments.

The end analysis is this: Liberals accept Vatican II, "T"raditionalists dont. Therefore Liberals accept the infallibility of the Pope(more or less) and "T"raditionalists do not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

Traditionalist Catholics, who claim that the modernising reforms that resulted both directly or indirectly from the council consequently brought detrimental effects and indifference to the customs, beliefs, and pious practices of the Church before 1962. In addition, they point out the doctrinal contradiction of the council in comparison to earlier papal statements regarding faith, morals and doctrine declared prior to the council itself. [6] They assert that since there are no dogmatic definitions in the documents of the council, such documents are not infallible, hence not canonically binding for faithful Roman Catholics, most notably when such concilliar documents give way to the loose implementation of longstanding upheld Catholic doctrine previously sanctioned by former Popes prior to 1962. [7]

Sedevacantists go beyond this in asserting that after breaking with Catholic tradition, the present Popes cannot really claim the Papacy which therefore is vacant.