Talk:Sedeprivationism

Untitled
This article needs some attention. Because it is merely a word coined by the English layman, William J. Morgan, for something that already existed, and because it is a very obscure word, the explanation for this word should be briefly mentioned in the article on the man who coined it, and a link to the article "Cassiciacum Thesis" added there. The page for Sedeprivationism itself should be redirected to the article on William J. Morgan. Diligens 17:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the explanation of the thesis is not accurate, or rather, it is incorrect.151.66.204.18 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP was right all those years ago. There is no source that William J. Morgan (Sedevacantist) (whose page was deleted) coined this word; even the source given, written by William J. Morgan himself, does not state he invented the word. Veverve (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Benny?
The article states, "According to Laurier's thesis, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI ..." (emphasis added). However, Laurier died in 1988, so I find it difficult to believe his document condemned the papacy of a pope who was elected almost twenty years later. Gentgeen (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On this, I added "implicitly". --Againme (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is difficult to believe. But only barely more difficult to believe than that "If [4 popes who have already died] recant from Modernism and return to Catholicism, they will complete the process and attain to the fullness of the papacy." How, exactly, does the writer of this article propose that the now-dead popes will recant? Publius3 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed tenses on that. --Againme (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Celebrities?
Does mentioning Mel Gibson shed some light onto this topic? We're not that consumed by the Hollywood lights, are we? The article noted, furthermore, is written by a person who feigns ignorance as to the meaning of sedeprivationism, and could not even with extreme difficulty be considered material beneficial for our understanding of the subject.CalebPM (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

needs editing for clarity
This article would benefit from being edited by a native English-speaker who knows the material. I find it very hard to figure out in some cases what a sentence means. --134.153.5.26 (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sedevacantism
Dear User:Veverve, thank you for your edits to try and improve the article on Sedeprivationism. I noted that you added this wikilink to the lede, but am I not sure that this is accurate since sedeprivationism does not assert that the Holy See is vacant, but only that the Pope is deprived of his power to reign in the office of the papacy. We have sources, though not the best, that state that these are two different positions and in light of that, I will remove the wikilink for now. Are you aware of any reference that states that sedeprivationism is a subset of sedevacantism? Point 1 of this article seems to suggest the opposite. With regards, AnupamTalk 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC) FWIW, this reference states:

This seems to suggest that the positions are opposed to one another, rather than one being a subset of another position. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 14:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * do the changes you want on this. There is probably zero RS on such a niche and dependable subject. Veverve (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Veverve. Happy editing! With regards, AnupamTalk 15:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Invisible Comment
User:Veverve, in this edit, I removed the clause you added regarding Modernism. That word isn't used anywhere in the lede (and therefore, commentary on personal thoughts about Taylor Marshall's article is unnecessary), though Wikipedia has an article about it here. If you disagree, please gain consensus before reinstating it. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 13:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)