A Catholic Monitor Comment Section discussion on Sedevacantism: "A False Solution to a Real Problem"
Below is an interesting Catholic Monitor comment section discussion on Sedevacantism:
T said: "Traditional Catholic theology would say that schism is not
doubting who is pope and so withdrawing obedience (based on reasonable
doubt), but it is recognizing someone as true pope and withdrawing
obedience."
T: I have had the raw ingredients of this statement floating around in my head, but it wasn't until you condensed it into this simple sequence that it all came together. Clarity.
My Priests have always said some variation on this, in our conversations when I inform them of my position (which I believe I am obliged to do). But this sequence makes the most sense. Thanks.
T: I have had the raw ingredients of this statement floating around in my head, but it wasn't until you condensed it into this simple sequence that it all came together. Clarity.
My Priests have always said some variation on this, in our conversations when I inform them of my position (which I believe I am obliged to do). But this sequence makes the most sense. Thanks.
T and Aqua:
T said: "Traditional Catholic theology would say that schism is not doubting who is pope and so withdrawing obedience (based on reasonable doubt), but it is recognizing someone as true pope and withdrawing obedience."
This sounds great, but then how is the SSPX not in schism? Or how aren't the sedevacantists not correct when they claim the SSPX are indeed sedes, but just don't know it or admit it? And how do we square what the post conciliar popes, especially JPII and Benedict have done, written and said regarding religious liberty and ecumenism? They both have made it quite clear that being Catholic isn't all that necessary. As Jeremiah said above, one is taking us to the abyss at 100 mph, the other 1000 mph. Kinda like Trump who loaded the gun with "warp speed vaccine" and now Biden fires the bullets with mandatory jab (saw this analogy on Twitter).
Given I (we) KNOW the Catholic faith IS true, how can we reconcile the antics of the past 60+ years by these popes?
T said: "Traditional Catholic theology would say that schism is not doubting who is pope and so withdrawing obedience (based on reasonable doubt), but it is recognizing someone as true pope and withdrawing obedience."
This sounds great, but then how is the SSPX not in schism? Or how aren't the sedevacantists not correct when they claim the SSPX are indeed sedes, but just don't know it or admit it? And how do we square what the post conciliar popes, especially JPII and Benedict have done, written and said regarding religious liberty and ecumenism? They both have made it quite clear that being Catholic isn't all that necessary. As Jeremiah said above, one is taking us to the abyss at 100 mph, the other 1000 mph. Kinda like Trump who loaded the gun with "warp speed vaccine" and now Biden fires the bullets with mandatory jab (saw this analogy on Twitter).
Given I (we) KNOW the Catholic faith IS true, how can we reconcile the antics of the past 60+ years by these popes?
Debbie,
That also is a great question.
When I talked to my Priest(s), I stated my disagreements with his reasoning, which essentially boiled down to what you just said. It makes no sense to me, how you can accept a man as Pope, at the same time you reject, or the cowards way out - ignore - ... almost literally ... *everything* he says and does.
I didn't like the answer I got, especially the last one, since it came far into the "Papa Francesco" rabbit hole - knowing what we know, how is such a view tenable?
I suppose, if I had to give an answer to your question, it would boil down to the SSPX willingness to obedience where possible, obedience to the Seat in Catholic Time transcending the current emergency, obedience to the Sacred Magisterium and the See of Peter where it is in union with it.
There is the Cionci Thesis that says Benedict recognized that the RCC was facing a grave crisis and that he took the Papacy into a state of impediment in order to save the Holy Papal Throne from malign, demonic forces that had it surrounded and still their mercy. *IF* this is true, and there is no doubt the malign forces exist, then the Seat is safe, in hiding, and we are left to make the best sense of it as we can. This is not normal.
It reminds me, very much, of the controversy surrounding who in this world can be saved. Fr Feeney, declared a heretic by the Church and excommunicated, held that only those literally baptized with water could be saved, and all others were damned to hell. The Church, however, holds that "Baptism of Deisre", "Baptism of Blood" and "Implicit Desire" *can*, by God's grace and in accord with His just judgements, *may* save *some* who have by no fault of their own desired the Church but never been exposed, due to circumstance and culture, exposed to the Gospel, the Church and Her Sacrsments. It is a "state of exception", opened by God in His mercy to those struggling to find Him in a sinful, fallen world.
In a similar way - those of us struggling to find the *TRUE CHURCH* when in these evil days it is hidden by such lies and violent usurpations, there will be still "implicit desire", "baptism of blood" etc.
That's how I answer it. We do the best we can. There is no one out there, NO ONE, not one single person who has the crisis all figured out and a clear path to understanding. Many people think they do. They deceive themselves. We are in an emergency, the visible Papacy is deformed, the true Papacy is hidden, and it is our desire and consuming efforts to find the Light that will save us in times such as these.
I will not leave the RCC. That I know for sure. SSPX (and others like them) who are tightly bound to know and deliver Sacred Tradition to the Faithful, who recognize the state of emergency better than I do, and have prepared for it since their founding fifty years ago - SSPX is a refuge. The best that I know. Do they make mistakes? They are not perfect, and they are not the Pope (with Divine protections). They call themselves "field medics". That seems appropriate. We do the best we can. And hope for God's mercy.
That also is a great question.
When I talked to my Priest(s), I stated my disagreements with his reasoning, which essentially boiled down to what you just said. It makes no sense to me, how you can accept a man as Pope, at the same time you reject, or the cowards way out - ignore - ... almost literally ... *everything* he says and does.
I didn't like the answer I got, especially the last one, since it came far into the "Papa Francesco" rabbit hole - knowing what we know, how is such a view tenable?
I suppose, if I had to give an answer to your question, it would boil down to the SSPX willingness to obedience where possible, obedience to the Seat in Catholic Time transcending the current emergency, obedience to the Sacred Magisterium and the See of Peter where it is in union with it.
There is the Cionci Thesis that says Benedict recognized that the RCC was facing a grave crisis and that he took the Papacy into a state of impediment in order to save the Holy Papal Throne from malign, demonic forces that had it surrounded and still their mercy. *IF* this is true, and there is no doubt the malign forces exist, then the Seat is safe, in hiding, and we are left to make the best sense of it as we can. This is not normal.
It reminds me, very much, of the controversy surrounding who in this world can be saved. Fr Feeney, declared a heretic by the Church and excommunicated, held that only those literally baptized with water could be saved, and all others were damned to hell. The Church, however, holds that "Baptism of Deisre", "Baptism of Blood" and "Implicit Desire" *can*, by God's grace and in accord with His just judgements, *may* save *some* who have by no fault of their own desired the Church but never been exposed, due to circumstance and culture, exposed to the Gospel, the Church and Her Sacrsments. It is a "state of exception", opened by God in His mercy to those struggling to find Him in a sinful, fallen world.
In a similar way - those of us struggling to find the *TRUE CHURCH* when in these evil days it is hidden by such lies and violent usurpations, there will be still "implicit desire", "baptism of blood" etc.
That's how I answer it. We do the best we can. There is no one out there, NO ONE, not one single person who has the crisis all figured out and a clear path to understanding. Many people think they do. They deceive themselves. We are in an emergency, the visible Papacy is deformed, the true Papacy is hidden, and it is our desire and consuming efforts to find the Light that will save us in times such as these.
I will not leave the RCC. That I know for sure. SSPX (and others like them) who are tightly bound to know and deliver Sacred Tradition to the Faithful, who recognize the state of emergency better than I do, and have prepared for it since their founding fifty years ago - SSPX is a refuge. The best that I know. Do they make mistakes? They are not perfect, and they are not the Pope (with Divine protections). They call themselves "field medics". That seems appropriate. We do the best we can. And hope for God's mercy.
I agree Aqua, NO ONE, not one single person has the crisis all figured
out and that would include the sedevacantists. For as long as I can
(financially) keep going to my ICK parish, I intend to stay put, but I
am confident that even if the sedes are wrong, God will be merciful to
them.
Debbie said: “ … God will be merciful to them”.
The following is related to that …
Been talking a lot lately, with my bride, about who can be redeemed? We are ex-proddies, you see, and … given the train wreck going on within the Catholic Church, side by side with people we know, or have known, who “love Jesus with all their hearts”; who live or lived good “Christian” lives, living God and their neighbor as themselves … can such as these be “saved”? She says - I can’t believe someone like Corrie Ten Boom is dammed to hell”.
And I say - maybe yes, maybe no, but I know what Trent says and it doesn’t leave a lot of room for interpretation.
But, there is more to the story than the definitions of Trent. It’s like when Luther based his heresy on Eph 2:8 (Grace *alone*). There is more to the story of redemption in a complicated, fallen, blinded and deceived world. God is just. But God is also merciful. Both.
Fr Feeney (you may have heard of Feeneyism) took Trent’s definition and based his theological framework on it to the exclusion of the rest of Church Tradition which (of course) leaves room for “circumstances”.
I put your question and reference to Sedes into that category. We live in the time of chastisement, I consider that clear enough. And keeping our faith and belief is not easy. The Church itself is seemingly leading us astray. Persecution is from within, mire even than without. Who is the Pope? Even something that basic isn’t known for sure.
The key phrase is Implicit Desire. We must seek God, through Holy Mother Church, to the extent we *can*, given the circumstances of our particulars.
This link, there are others I can provide, I think is the best at explaining the mind of the Church on redemption in times of exception (which are infinitely variable, and not for us to specifically judge … just to be aware of).
Anyway - this link I think applies to the question of unusual solutions outside of normal, when normal channels (Diocesan) are leading us into sin and separation. There are useful parallels, imo.
https://catholicact.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/eens.pdf
The following is related to that …
Been talking a lot lately, with my bride, about who can be redeemed? We are ex-proddies, you see, and … given the train wreck going on within the Catholic Church, side by side with people we know, or have known, who “love Jesus with all their hearts”; who live or lived good “Christian” lives, living God and their neighbor as themselves … can such as these be “saved”? She says - I can’t believe someone like Corrie Ten Boom is dammed to hell”.
And I say - maybe yes, maybe no, but I know what Trent says and it doesn’t leave a lot of room for interpretation.
But, there is more to the story than the definitions of Trent. It’s like when Luther based his heresy on Eph 2:8 (Grace *alone*). There is more to the story of redemption in a complicated, fallen, blinded and deceived world. God is just. But God is also merciful. Both.
Fr Feeney (you may have heard of Feeneyism) took Trent’s definition and based his theological framework on it to the exclusion of the rest of Church Tradition which (of course) leaves room for “circumstances”.
I put your question and reference to Sedes into that category. We live in the time of chastisement, I consider that clear enough. And keeping our faith and belief is not easy. The Church itself is seemingly leading us astray. Persecution is from within, mire even than without. Who is the Pope? Even something that basic isn’t known for sure.
The key phrase is Implicit Desire. We must seek God, through Holy Mother Church, to the extent we *can*, given the circumstances of our particulars.
This link, there are others I can provide, I think is the best at explaining the mind of the Church on redemption in times of exception (which are infinitely variable, and not for us to specifically judge … just to be aware of).
Anyway - this link I think applies to the question of unusual solutions outside of normal, when normal channels (Diocesan) are leading us into sin and separation. There are useful parallels, imo.
https://catholicact.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/eens.pdf
Just to be safe, here are my other links (SSPX of course)
SSPX Asia
https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Catholic_Doctrine/Is-there-no-salvation-outside-the-Catholic-Church.htm
SSPX Part I
https://sspx.org/en/ecumenism-trap
SSPX Part II
https://sspx.org/en/ecumenism-trap-2
SSPX Asia
https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Catholic_Doctrine/Is-there-no-salvation-outside-the-Catholic-Church.htm
SSPX Part I
https://sspx.org/en/ecumenism-trap
SSPX Part II
https://sspx.org/en/ecumenism-trap-2
For all anti-SSPXers and other Francis Catholics who like to call
everyone they don't like “schismatics" reading this, here from Fr. Dave
Nix is the post"The SSPX is Not Schismatic":
https://padreperegrino.org/2022/05/sspx/
Although canonically-irregular, the SSPX (Society of Pope St. Pius X) founded by Archbishop Lefebvre (above picture) in the 1970s, is not schismatic. In traditional papal encyclicals, a “schismatic community” is a Christian community adhering to valid sacraments but without recognizing the primacy of place of Rome or the importance of the papacy. An example of this would be the Eastern Orthodox: The Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments, but many do not realize the primacy of place of Rome (or believe it was transferred due to error a thousand years ago.) In any case, the SSPX has always recognized the papacy and the primacy of Rome. The reciprocal is also true, namely, that every Pope since foundation of the SSPX in the 1970s has recognized the validity of their sacraments. Thus, they do not fit the classic definition of “schism.” Not even by a long shot....
... On a completely and totally different topic from the above, this is also a definition you should know: A sedevacantist is a traditional Catholic who believes there have been no valid Popes since 1958. I am not a sedevacantist. However, I do not believe sedevacantists are schismatic either. This is also seen in the writings of St. Cajetan who puts an unusual emphasis on conscience for a 16th c. writer:
If someone, for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the Pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delect of schism nor any other whatsoever, provided that he be ready to accept the Pope were he not held in suspicion. It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and to ward off dangers. In fact, it may happen that the Pope could govern tyrannically and that is all the easier as he is the more powerful and does not fear any punishment from anyone on earth.—St. Cardinal Thomas Cajetan
(No, I am not going to join either of the two above groups. I simply desire to clear up widespread confusion about them.)
https://padreperegrino.org/2022/05/sspx/
Although canonically-irregular, the SSPX (Society of Pope St. Pius X) founded by Archbishop Lefebvre (above picture) in the 1970s, is not schismatic. In traditional papal encyclicals, a “schismatic community” is a Christian community adhering to valid sacraments but without recognizing the primacy of place of Rome or the importance of the papacy. An example of this would be the Eastern Orthodox: The Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments, but many do not realize the primacy of place of Rome (or believe it was transferred due to error a thousand years ago.) In any case, the SSPX has always recognized the papacy and the primacy of Rome. The reciprocal is also true, namely, that every Pope since foundation of the SSPX in the 1970s has recognized the validity of their sacraments. Thus, they do not fit the classic definition of “schism.” Not even by a long shot....
... On a completely and totally different topic from the above, this is also a definition you should know: A sedevacantist is a traditional Catholic who believes there have been no valid Popes since 1958. I am not a sedevacantist. However, I do not believe sedevacantists are schismatic either. This is also seen in the writings of St. Cajetan who puts an unusual emphasis on conscience for a 16th c. writer:
If someone, for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the Pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delect of schism nor any other whatsoever, provided that he be ready to accept the Pope were he not held in suspicion. It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and to ward off dangers. In fact, it may happen that the Pope could govern tyrannically and that is all the easier as he is the more powerful and does not fear any punishment from anyone on earth.—St. Cardinal Thomas Cajetan
(No, I am not going to join either of the two above groups. I simply desire to clear up widespread confusion about them.)
Aqua, yes, I've read Fr. Nix's piece and it reaffirmed what I've been
thinking; that the sedes are not in schism. Rome seems to have lost the
faith...so it's pretty difficult to believe the sedes are outside the
Church, IMO.
I've been to the sede Church that's only a mile from my house three times and the first time I went I was extremely nervous, but as I was driving there (it was raining) a most beautiful double rainbow appeared right as I was approaching the Church. I've not received any Sacraments there, but as it is becoming more and more difficult for me to make the 30 mile trip to my ICK parish daily....I am strongly considering it.
I know I am waffling back and forth, and I do not like it, but that's where I am. I don't see how all the post conciliar popes are not heretics.
I've been to the sede Church that's only a mile from my house three times and the first time I went I was extremely nervous, but as I was driving there (it was raining) a most beautiful double rainbow appeared right as I was approaching the Church. I've not received any Sacraments there, but as it is becoming more and more difficult for me to make the 30 mile trip to my ICK parish daily....I am strongly considering it.
I know I am waffling back and forth, and I do not like it, but that's where I am. I don't see how all the post conciliar popes are not heretics.
Fred,
Very well put. Helpful. And in alignment with what my Priests have said, though their counsel was more general.
Aqua.
Very well put. Helpful. And in alignment with what my Priests have said, though their counsel was more general.
Aqua.
Debbie said... I don't see how all the post conciliar popes are not heretics.
Debbie,
That was me (Fred) who posted the above
I know you and I don't like Ferrara, but nor does Woods who co-authored the book and I still say:
"The Great Facade" is still where I think you should start on your question above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.
Page 59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the "same error.The Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says." Unlike Francis the other Vatican II popes didn't do:
LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
Also, "the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." or we become Protestant-like:
"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."
- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."
I, too, have a good friend who is a Sede, but I won't join him,for the above reasons , others and the infallible Vatican I:
Are you prepared to deny Vatican I?
Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:
"[T]he true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).
I hope that is helpful.
Debbie,
That was me (Fred) who posted the above
I know you and I don't like Ferrara, but nor does Woods who co-authored the book and I still say:
"The Great Facade" is still where I think you should start on your question above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.
Page 59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the "same error.The Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says." Unlike Francis the other Vatican II popes didn't do:
LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
Also, "the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." or we become Protestant-like:
"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."
- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."
I, too, have a good friend who is a Sede, but I won't join him,for the above reasons , others and the infallible Vatican I:
Are you prepared to deny Vatican I?
Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:
"[T]he true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).
I hope that is helpful.
There are no more cardinals alive who were made so by Pope Pius XII which means no more popes will reign perpetually.
Fred,
“Michael Stephen”, commenting on Non Veni Pacem blog, raises a very interesting speculation about all the events you describe here, and which Debbie has been seeking answers for also, the time period covering the past 60 years (since 1958).
His comments are at the very end of the thread, I link it here.
https://nonvenipacem.com/2022/06/06/question-five-for-the-bip-advocates-of-plan-b-he-did-it-on-purpose-and-knows-he-is-still-pope-why-did-benedict-lie-in-his-final-public-appearance-of-28-feb-2013/
And his comments are intriguing, in that he connects the recent events, which make so little sense, to the Third Fatima Secret which, through the inference drawn from the actions of all Popes who have read the secret, kept it mysteriously hidden, is decisive judgement upon the Church and the world. He concluded that Benedict acted as he did knowing God’s judgement was here; and that Bergoglio is that judgement, or at least its opening chapter.
I’m usually not one for speculations like this, since it is not possible to verify any of it. But this has the ring of truth to it. Something is seriously wrong; bent, broken. This is not normal. The evil and blithe acceptance of evil … and concurrent acceptance of revolutionary alteration of everything - which is what Debbie keeps referring to imo - it’s all just stunning when you stop and think about it. Which leaves room then (for me) for openings to the possibility that the unrevealed judgements in Fatima’s Third Secret from heaven are upon us.
Check it out - “Michael Stephen’s” comment, last in the thread.
“Michael Stephen”, commenting on Non Veni Pacem blog, raises a very interesting speculation about all the events you describe here, and which Debbie has been seeking answers for also, the time period covering the past 60 years (since 1958).
His comments are at the very end of the thread, I link it here.
https://nonvenipacem.com/2022/06/06/question-five-for-the-bip-advocates-of-plan-b-he-did-it-on-purpose-and-knows-he-is-still-pope-why-did-benedict-lie-in-his-final-public-appearance-of-28-feb-2013/
And his comments are intriguing, in that he connects the recent events, which make so little sense, to the Third Fatima Secret which, through the inference drawn from the actions of all Popes who have read the secret, kept it mysteriously hidden, is decisive judgement upon the Church and the world. He concluded that Benedict acted as he did knowing God’s judgement was here; and that Bergoglio is that judgement, or at least its opening chapter.
I’m usually not one for speculations like this, since it is not possible to verify any of it. But this has the ring of truth to it. Something is seriously wrong; bent, broken. This is not normal. The evil and blithe acceptance of evil … and concurrent acceptance of revolutionary alteration of everything - which is what Debbie keeps referring to imo - it’s all just stunning when you stop and think about it. Which leaves room then (for me) for openings to the possibility that the unrevealed judgements in Fatima’s Third Secret from heaven are upon us.
Check it out - “Michael Stephen’s” comment, last in the thread.
Aqua,
Thanks. I'll check it out.
Thanks. I'll check it out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This extract (Michael Stephen) is relevant to the discussion:
"The Pope of 1960, John XXIII, had not satisfied those two requests of Mary (of the Third Secret). “These [predictions],” John had noted for his successors, “do not concern our times.” John had refused to publish the text of the “Third Secret.” He had not organized the collegial consecration of Russia to Mary—although he had a made-to-order opportunity to do so when 2,500 Roman Catholic bishops assembled in the Vatican on October 11, 1962, for the opening of his Second Vatican Council.
He could have. Instead, he was largely absent from the Council he called, monitoring the developments on closed circuit tv, interjecting himself only rarely. And the result was a rejection of the message from heaven; a choice instead for a Council that gave us New Church.
The Bishops were all there. The direction from the clearly miraculous apparition of Our Lady was clear and direct. The choice of our Pope in response was specific: "No".
The door of obedience closed with the Council.
Michael Stephen contends - direct connection between that "No" and Benedict's current choice.
"The Pope of 1960, John XXIII, had not satisfied those two requests of Mary (of the Third Secret). “These [predictions],” John had noted for his successors, “do not concern our times.” John had refused to publish the text of the “Third Secret.” He had not organized the collegial consecration of Russia to Mary—although he had a made-to-order opportunity to do so when 2,500 Roman Catholic bishops assembled in the Vatican on October 11, 1962, for the opening of his Second Vatican Council.
He could have. Instead, he was largely absent from the Council he called, monitoring the developments on closed circuit tv, interjecting himself only rarely. And the result was a rejection of the message from heaven; a choice instead for a Council that gave us New Church.
The Bishops were all there. The direction from the clearly miraculous apparition of Our Lady was clear and direct. The choice of our Pope in response was specific: "No".
The door of obedience closed with the Council.
Michael Stephen contends - direct connection between that "No" and Benedict's current choice.
Thanks Fred, and sorry for the mix up. And thank you too Aqua. Always
good and thoughtful comments. Going to respond later after a bit more
research. I will say now though that I believe God's Mercy will flow to
all those committed to the Apostolic faith.....SSPX, ED communities and
yes even the sedes. Bellermine makes it clear that a doubtful pope is no
pope at all. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/lifesitenews-like-remnant-wants-us-to.html?showComment=1655135698532#c2412922050184525969]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.
Before we move to the next point that Sedevacantists and Francis Traditionalists like Steve Skojec are in agreement that Francis and Benedict as well as John Paul II are the same, let's look at the problems with Sedevacantism.
Number one is Vatican I.
Are they prepared to deny Vatican I?
Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:
"[T]he true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).
Br. Alexis Bugnolo explains some other problems with them:
Sedevacantists hold in general that there have been no true popes since Pius XII. They accept the error of Luther that there is no authority or unity in the Church except that which is given the individual by the virtue of Faith. Thus, holding themselves as purer than all others, after the manner of Jansenists, they judge nearly everyone a heretic and thus outside of the Church. Their special target is all who hold an office which comes down through Apostolic Succession, because that is the real threat to their error and their egos." [https://fromrome.info/2020/01/19/flagship-of-sedes-presages-ppbxvi-movement-victory-in-2020/]