CathInfo.com

I don't think that these words make any sense at all.

They are the result of backwards thinking.

What a sorry let-down from "Rome is controlled by antichrists!" and "They have uncrowned Him!" and "Cardinal Ratzinger is working for the dechristianization of society." and "The time may come when we shall have to see the See of Peter as vacant!"

If the Conciliar Church is evil and does evil to men, why should we consider its visibility as something that can do good? What sane person wants a mortal snare to enjoy visibility?

And what of the SSPX? Archbishop Lefebvre always said that it was necessary to ensure the survival of the Church. How visible is IT to most people? And in what way is his relatively invisible Society connected to what IS visible -the New Pentecostalist abomination- which Archbishop Lefebvre considered the antithesis of the Faith, ordered to the damnation of its adherents?

People can find a local outpost of the all too visible Vatican II church in the yellow pages and send their kids to one of its schools and have their kids come home preaching the word that nowadays we understand that above all Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet who abhorred exclusivisistic judgmentalism and accepted people as they were, on their own terms, and respected their existential authenticity, and didn't try to change them according to a rigid exterior norm of morality.

So much for the Vatican II church's accursed visibility and for quoting Archbishop Lefebvre when he was clearly off his game.

The problem here is that people, out of desperation, are confusing Rube Goldberg with Jesus Christ when it comes to understanding the way in which the Church is constructed and what the workings of a future salvation might be. It's sheer presumption to start rationalizing according to the whims of folk Catholicism on how you'd have to have your cardinals is place, see, otherwise you don't get your Pope Pius XIII, see...

The problem NOW is a putative pope or (let's allow it) a Resistance-worthy pope who is a heretic ten thousand times over and a "papally" approved and fostered New Pentecost that disgusts the better class of Mason and Communist and psychokiller. It is juvenile to refuse to deal with that real probem seriously, according to Catholic doctrinal norms (and one's own self-contradictory outbursts on one's more, um, "schismatic" days) and to prefer to dabble with one's own oo'ertowering and complex but fatally wobbly constructions of redemptive fantasies.

But I think it's fair to say that most sedevacantists do not hold with the so-called Siri Thesis.

There are many different sedevacantist theories among different kinds of sedevacantists.

Some hold that despite his vagaries, John XXIII was as certain a pope as Pius X. Others hold that Paul VI started out as pope, but "lost it" when he promulgated the heresies of Vatican II on December 7, 1965. Others hold that he was never a pope because he was a heretic as Cardinal Montini and therefore ineligible. They hold that NO true pope can EVER lose the papacy. Others hold otherwise. The theology of sedevacantism is never as simple as A,B,C once you start to get legalistic and canonically fussy about it all.

Roscoe, if we dig deeply enough we might find that all the Supreme Pontiffs had "someone." Except for Pius X, who had Merry del Val. It may be bad for one's spiritual shovel to dig too deeply into a divinely created Rock.

Don't be afraid to dig into the Divinely created rock as my experience has been that there is nothing to worry about. Why are you presuming that you might find trouble if you look to closely?