Parts of this essay are a good defense of the papacy, but the essay does not refute sedevacantism.  He defends the dogma of the papacy and then, without evidence or showing any link whatsoever, he links particular individuals to the papacy and declares that anyone who does not accept the claims of those individuals to the papacy are denying the dogma.

The fundamental misunderstanding he has of "sedevacanism" is that it is somehow a doctrine contrary to the dogma of the papacy.  It is not.  The word, sedevacantism, is a neologism, that is, it is a word invented quite recently to describe a state of being.  The whole world is sedevacantist at the death of every pope.  This has been true for two thousand years and he does not refute the one and only truth that the sedevacantists hold:  The the man who currently claims the title of pope is a manifest and public heretic and apostate, he is therefore not a Catholic, and cannot, therefore, be the pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

Sedevacantism is not a set of beliefs.  It is merely the recognition of the true state of being, that is, that the Church is currently without a head here on earth.  

In the American political realm, there is a similar idea.  There are many people who are not convinced that the President of the United States is a natural born citizen.  These people do not reject the "presidency" neither do they claim that there can never again be a valid President of the United States elected to office.  They merely claim that the evidence points to the fact that the man who currently claims the office is ineligible for the office.  

The evidence against Obama, however, is circuмstantial and could be easily quashed if he would simply provide one docuмent.  On the other hand, the evidence against Benedict is not circuмstantial.  In fact, he himself publishes the evidence, the Vatican website and newspaper routinely promote the evidence, EWTN broadcasts the evidence, and he is proud of the evidence of his heresy and apostasy because the evidence proves his liberality.

Thus, the essay by I. Shawn McElhinney is pretty much worthless.

In the American political realm, there is a similar idea.  There are many people who are not convinced that the President of the United States is a natural born citizen.  These people do not reject the "presidency" neither do they claim that there can never again be a valid President of the United States elected to office.  They merely claim that the evidence points to the fact that the man who currently claims the office is ineligible for the office.  

The evidence against Obama, however, is circuмstantial and could be easily quashed if he would simply provide one docuмent.

FWIW, I mentioned this idea in another thread.  It was shot down as ridiculous.  I am not saying this to give stevus grief, but to let you know he does not buy the idea that it is reasonable to doubt BO's eligibility.

Heretics cannot be Pope, that is a defined dogma, but even tho steve knows it, yet do he, and many others here, obstinately reject these dogmas. Talk about a bunch of faithless heretics. No wonder left the whole world over to the Vatican II apostasy. None of good will virtually exist anymore today, the world is full of mortal sinners and heretics. But yet, do most people think themselves to be faithful.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

Besides antipopes reigning from Rome due to uncanonical elections, the Catholic  Church teaches that if a pope were to become a heretic he would automatically lose his office and cease to be the pope.  This is the teaching of all the doctors and fathers of the Church who addressed the issue:

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,  De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged  and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle  is most certain.  The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26).  The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest  heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

St. Francis De Sales (17th   century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."

St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become  a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church.  A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body  from which it was cut off.  A pope  who would be separated from the Church by heresy,  therefore, would  by that very fact itself cease to be head  of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because,  since he is outside  of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond  pub.)

That a heretic cannot be a pope is rooted in the dogma that
heretics are not members  of the Catholic Church

It should be noted that the teaching from the saints and doctors of the Church, which  is quoted above – that a pope  who became  a heretic would automatically cease to be pope  – is rooted in the infallible  dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene  IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“ The Holy Roman  Church firmly believes, professes  and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and  schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism  or heresy or apostasy.”

We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic  Church that a man is severed from the Church by heresy, schism or apostasy.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“ The practice  of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers,  who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever  would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
“ No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies)  can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself  one.  For there may be or arise some other heresies, which  are not set out in this work  of ours, and, if any one holds to a single  one of these he is not a Catholic.”

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“ By the heart  we believe  and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic,  and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Thus, it’s not merely the opinion  of certain saints and doctors of the Church that a heretic would cease to be pope;  it’s a fact inextricably bound up with a dogmatic teaching.   A truth  inextricably bound up with a dogma is called a dogmatic fact. It is, therefore, a dogmatic fact that a heretic cannot be the pope.   A heretic cannot be the pope,  since one who is outside cannot head that of which he is not even a member.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
“ No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

Pope Paul IV issued  a Papal Bull solemnly declaring that the election of a heretic as pope is null and void

In 1559 Pope Paul IV issued an entire Papal Bull dealing with the subject and the possibility of a heretic being elected pope.

At the time that Paul IV issued the Bull (quoted below)  there  were rumors that one of the cardinals was a secret Protestant. In order to prevent the election of such a heretic to the Papacy, Pope Paul IV solemnly declared that a heretic cannot be validly  elected pope.  Below are the pertinent portions of the Bull.  For the entire Bull, see our website.

Pope Paul IV, Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1… Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must  more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular  jurisdiction, should wretchedly  ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with  them  into perdition, destruction and damnation countless  peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also  lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken  of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire  has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God,We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked  husbandman and be compared with the hireling…

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which  is to remain  valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation  as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff,  has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity)  through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period  of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…
(vi) those thus  promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further  declaration, of all dignity, position,  honour, title, authority, office and power…

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this docuмent of our approbation, re- introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it.  If anyone,  however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's  in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th
February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

With the fullness of his papal  authority, Pope Paul IV declared that the election of a heretic is invalid, even if it takes place with the unanimous consent of the cardinals and is accepted by all.

Pope Paul IV also declared that he was making this declaration in order to combat the arrival of the abomination  of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, in the holy place.  This is astounding, and it seems to indicate that the Magisterium  itself is connecting the eventual arrival of the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24:15) with a heretic posing as the pope – perhaps because the heretic posing as the pope will give us the abomination of desolation in the holy place (the New Mass), as we believe is the case, or because the heretical antipope will himself constitute the abomination of desolation in the holy place.

I suppose YOU are the only man of good will left?

If you're talking to me, then no. I am not a good person, but at least, I am honest enough not to deny the above clear dogmas condemning Benedict XVI. Benedict is a manifest heretic, since he refuse to accept SSPX's stand on Ecuмenism, but rather wants SSPX to accept Vatican II's stance on Ecuмenism.

SSPX are heretics in many other ways though, but yet, they are right on their stance on Ecuмenism, but Benedict XVI refuse to change position, since he is obstinate. So, he is clearly a heretic, and cannot be pope.

Quote from: SJB

I suppose YOU are the only man of good will left?

If you're talking to me, then no. I am not a good person, but at least, I am honest enough not to deny the above clear dogmas condemning Benedict XVI. Benedict is a manifest heretic, since he refuse to accept SSPX's stand on Ecuмenism, but rather wants SSPX to accept Vatican II's stance on Ecuмenism.

SSPX are heretics in many other ways though, but yet, they are right on their stance on Ecuмenism, but Benedict XVI refuse to change position, since he is obstinate. So, he is clearly a heretic, and cannot be pope.

Who is then? Nobody?

This is why I have Heitanen on ignore. It gets old reading the posts of a person who thinks he is already saved.  :rolleyes:

No post VCII Pope has been a "nototrious" heretic.

The very fact that no catholics except a small handful of sedes and some Trads think they have been bears evidence to this fact. Otherwise one would have to claim 99% of Catholics not being able to see the "indisputable", means they are either extremely stupid or liars. Obviously this is not true. It took almost a decade before the thesis JXXIII and Paul VI were not popes was even publicly seriously proposed. Were all catholics up and until the first public sede pronouncement imbeciles or liars? Cardinal Ottaviani? Archbishop Sheen? Abp. Lefebvre? The International Group of Fathers from VCII?

To meet the notorious standard we would need an indisputable official public Papal heresy such as, "Christ was not God", if this is even possible. If it is possible, it seems to me Christ's promise to Peter and VCI are gutted.

However, for the sake of argument, if the impossible happened, I would ask, who deposes the Pope?

(Latin Notorietas, notorium, from notus, known).

Notoriety is the quality or the state of things that are notorious; whatever is so fully or officially proved, that it may and ought to be held as certain without further investigation, is notorious. It is difficult to express exactly what is meant by notoriety, and, as the Gloss says (in can. Manifesta, 15, C. ii, q. 1), "we are constantly using the word notorious and are ignorant of its meaning". Ordinarily it is equivalent to public, manifest, evident, known; all these terms have something in common, they signify that a thing, far from being secret, may be easily known by many. Notoriety, in addition to this common idea, involves the idea of indisputable proof, so that what is notorious is held as proved and serves as a basis for the conclusions and acts of those in authority, especially judges. To be as precise as is possible, "public" means what any one may easily prove or ascertain, what is done openly; what many persons know and hold as certain, is "manifest"; what a greater or less number of persons have learnt, no matter how, is "known"; what is to be held as certain and may no longer be called in question is "notorious".

Authorities distinguish between notoriety of fact, notoriety of law, and presumptive notoriety, though the last is often considered a subdivision of the second. Whatever is easily shown and is known by a sufficient number of persons to be free from reasonable doubt is notorious in fact. This kind of notoriety may refer either to a transitory fact, e.g., Caius was αssαssιnαtҽd; or permanent facts, e.g., Titius is parish priest of this parish; or recurring facts, e.g. Sempronius engages in usurious transactions. Whatever has been judicially ascertained, viz., judicial admissions, an affair fully proved, and the judgment rendered in a lawsuit, is notorious in law; the judge accepts the fact as certain without investigation; nor will he allow, except in certain well-specified cases, the matter to be called in question. "Notorious" is then used as more or less synonymous with "official". Such also are facts recorded in official docuмents, as civil or ecclesiastical registries of births, deaths, or marriages, notarial records. Lastly, whatever arises from a rule of law based on a "violent" presumption, for instance, paternity and filiation in case of a legitimate marriage, is presumptively notorious.

When a fact is admitted as notorious by the judge, and in general by a competent authority, no proof of it is required, but it is often necessary to show that it is notorious, as the judge is not expected to know every notorious fact. The notoriety has to be proved, like any other fact alleged in a trial, by witnesses or "instruments", that is, written docuмents. The witnesses swear that the fact in question is publicly known and admitted beyond dispute in their locality or circle. The docuмents consist especially in extracts from the official registries, in the copies of authentic judicial papers, for instance, a judgment, or of notarial papers, known as "notarial acts", drawn up by public notaries on the conscientious declarations of well-informed witnesses.

Canonists have variously classified the legal effects of notoriety, especially in matters of procedure; but, ultimately, they may all be reduced to one: the judge, and in general the person in authority, holding what is notorious to be certain and proved, requires no further information, and therefore, both may and ought to refrain from any judicial inquiry, proof, or formalities, which would otherwise be necessary. For these inquiries and formalities having as their object to enlighten the judge, are useless when the fact is notorious. Such is the true meaning of the axiom that in notorious matters the judge need not follow the judicial procedure (cf. can. 14 and 16, C. ii, q. 1; cap.7 and 10, "De cohab. cleric", lib. III, tit. ii; cap.3, "De testib. cogend.", lib. II, tit. xxi). None of the essential solemnities of the procedure should ever be omitted. The most interesting application of the effect of notoriety in criminal matters is in connexion with the pagrans delictus, when the accused is caught in the criminal act, in which case the judge is dispensed from the necessity of any inquiry.