I've sort of come to the conclusion that I'm am and  hold the Agnostic Sedevecantist position. :rolleyes: What is that you say? Well, firstly, it is of course a joke/pun, so don't take me too seriously. But what it basically comes down to, is this:

Agnosticism:claims that the existence or non-existence of any deity,is unknown or unknowable.

Agnostic Sedevecantist: claims that the existence or non-existence of a valid, true, pope ,is unknown or unknowable.

So then, I do not deny the heresy of the popes of VII (or more correctly, I recognize the heresy), yet I know I am no theologian, and as appealing as it is to go around waiving my heretic wand, I know that the formal declaration of heresy of a pope is a much deeper, thorough, formal, and political issue, than many would make you believe. I am no theologian. I have no way of proving the pope is pope or not- if it were that simple, the Society (sspx), with some of the best theologians in the post-VII circus of a world we're living in, would have stated so; simple.

No one has truly overcome, in my humble opinion, the issue at hand; not some so-called, self-taught "brothers Diamond" (I wonder how they like the quotations on themselves? :wink:), or (and I hate to include them in the same sentence as the blood-sucking-Diamonds) the good and holy, yet simply formed priests of CMRI.

It was said before that the determination of the official status of pope is a retroactive type of determination; since it must be held by a future council. Other than that, the issue only seems to cause division amongst trads. The unspoken truth is that many in the sspx(especially priests I know) treat sedes and the position as heresy. While this may be true for dogmatic sedevecantism, its not the position that the knowledgeable sede's hold.

On the other hand you have retard sede's- Diamonds, are the most annoying so I like chopping them down- who have this mentality that since they're so great to have determined the pope to be a heretic, and thusly and 'anti-pope', that they must be heretic fairies! They new job is to fling their heretic pixie dust at all who disagree with them. The saddest part is that many of their ignorant and stupid followers do the same; some of them here. That doesn't make them bad-willed; it makes them dumb for following in that destructive pattern.

So anyways, its a new term I've invented. Just having fun with words. I just want everyone, on both sides of the 'pews' to recognize that the sedevecantists position is an opinion. It may be strong in some, it may be a half-truth for others, or an inconceivable idea for the rest.

Please don't pull out a Catholic encyclopedia and call me a heretic; just go to the warner "bros" website and get your fill.


But what do you think?

What people don't realize is that taking the sedevacantist position isn't even necessary. Divine Law does not require you to say that an anti-pope is an anti-pope. Canon Law does not require you to. Nothing does. The fact that a heretic would lose all jurisdiction immediately without declaration is just proof that you don't even need to take a position. No one needs to declare that they've lost the office. They lose it without anyone's say so.

So I've changed my position to: Sedes non opus est determinare - The see does not need to be determined. While I'm not going to be (or at least will try to avoid) calling Benedict XVI a pope (because I have great doubt that he is) or antipope anymore, I'm simply going to not take a position. I'll simply wait until/if a future Pope or council decides to condemn the V2 papal claimants as anti-popes because I don't have to make that decision.

It actaully sounds like you all are taking the POsition of SSPV, is that correct? We acknowledge all the principles that lead to the conclusions of sedevacantism, but at the end of the day, they are merely permissible human opinons founded on human logic. Is that right? And it still doesn't mean that it is wrong to try to convince others of what you believe is the TRUTH right? I mean, an allowable opinon can be taught as the truth, correct?

Daegus- A very well though and reasonable position. Is this a new development in your thinking?

THis group, the SSPV, seems to be the most balanced in its approach to the issue. THis is their statement of principles. It is long... Read Points 7, 8, 9, 10.

Declaration of Principles

A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES IN A TIME OF CRISIS THE CHURCH

1. The changes following the Second Vatican Council have proven so damaging to the Roman Catholic Religion and so detrimental to the sanctification of souls that one can easily discern that "an enemy has done this." This Council marked the culmination of the first phase of a liberal and modernist intrusion into the Roman Catholic Church, which intrusion had already begun in the nineteenth century and to which St. Pius X alerted the Church in 1907. In his Encyclical "Pascendi" he states: "The partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are…thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church." This intrusion was made possible because men influenced by modernist ideas gained positions of authority, thereby permitting confirmed heretics and enemies of the Church to overtake our Catholic institutions.

2. The aforesaid intruders have embraced and promoted the modernist and liberal program of the reform of the Church, condemned by the Roman Pontiffs, particularly by Pius VI, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII.




3. These intruders have attempted to promulgate, in the name of the Roman Catholic Church, abominable novelties in every aspect of her life, i.e., in the areas of doctrine, morals, liturgy, canon law, pastoral practices, seminary education and religious life.




4. The intrusion of the liberals and modernists into positions of control has caused the wide-spread destruction of Catholic Faith, morals and worship and the creation of a new religion - the so-called conciliar religion which is not the Catholic Religion. It should be apparent to all that this new religion is not the Catholic Religion because since its introduction into our Catholic institutions, these institutions no longer manifest the four marks of the true Church, the marks of unity, holiness, catholicity, apostolicity. Thus, those who promote the doctrines and reforms of the conciliar religion do not represent the Roman Catholic Church, which is absolutely and exclusively identified with the Mystical Body of Christ and which is known by its four marks.




5. The Catholic Church was established by Our Lord Jesus Christ for the purpose of teaching, ruling and sanctifying the faithful in His name. The members of its hierarchy are true successors of the Apostles, and the Pope, who as the head of the Catholic hierarchy, is the successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ on earth. A Roman Pontiff consequently has universal and immediate jurisdiction over all the faithful.




6. To this Catholic hierarchy throughout the ages have been addressed the words of Christ to the Apostles: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." (John 20:21). By virtue of its divine institution, therefore, the hierarchy, by its very nature, exercises an authority over the faithful which is the very authority of Christ.




7. To exercise authority over the Church one must externally be a member of the Church. To be a member of the Church one must profess the Catholic Faith. Public abandonment of the Faith severs one from the Church and causes one to lose any position of authority one may have had. For this reason, theologians of all time have held and taught, and Canon Law confirms in Canon 1325, no. 2, that anyone who publicly and notoriously defects from the Faith by obstinately denying or doubting any article of Divine and Catholic Faith is a heretic. It is evident that such a person could not possibly rule the faithful, for by analogy to a physical body, it would be impossible to be the head of a body of which one is not even a member.




8. Thus Canon Law equally provides for the tacit resignation from positions of authority of those who defect publicly from the Catholic Faith (Canon 188, no. 4).



9. But those who presently are thought to be occupying hierarchical positions in the Catholic Church are acting, for the most part, as though they do not have the Faith, according to all human means of judging.




10. Among Catholics who are presently adhering to tradition, bishops, priests, and laity alike, we observe a marked difference of opinion concerning the legitimacy of the present hierarchy. We hold that there is certain and sufficient evidence to assert, as a legitimate theological opinion, that anyone who publicly professes the conciliar religion does not legitimately hold any position of authority in the Catholic Church for the reasons stated in paragraph seven. While we do not claim the authority to settle this question definitively, we believe that the legitimacy of this theological opinion is dictated by logic and a correct application of Catholic theological principles. We recognize that the definitive and authoritative resolution to such theological questions rests ultimately with the magisterium of the Church. We thus deplore the attempt of some to settle this question by acting as though they had the authority to bind the consciences of the faithful in matters which have not been definitively settled by the Church.




11. The secondary object of the infallibility of the Church is her rites and disciplines. Because of this secondary infallibility, it is impossible for her to prescribe for the Universal Church a law which is harmful or evil. But the modernists have promulgated, purportedly in the name of the Church, rites and disciplines which are poisonous, evil, and harmful to souls. It is, therefore, certain that these rites and disciplines do not come from the Roman Catholic Church. THE SACRAMENTS




12. Since the Second Vatican Council, the sacraments of the Catholic Church have been radically altered by the modernists. These alterations contain substantial changes with regard to the ceremonies of the sacraments. In addition, they have effected changes in the very matter and form of the sacraments, thus rendering some of them doubtful and invalid.




13. In any case, therefore, in which the form or matter of the sacraments has been altered, we hold them thereby to be invalid if the change is substantial, or doubtfully valid where the matter or form is not certain, depending on the nature of the alteration effected. A clear example of such an alteration is the approval of grape juice as the matter for the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist by the modernists operating in the Congregation for Divine Worship.




14. Sacraments in the new religion are further rendered doubtful or invalid (1) by a defect of intention on the part of the minister in certain cases and (2) by the deviations, undertaken by the ministers, in individual cases which corrupt form and/or matter.




15. In the practical order, in the course of our pastoral activity, the Church obliges us to require the reiteration according to the traditional rites, either conditionally or absolutely, as the case may be, of any sacrament conferred in a doubtful or invalid manner. We refer the final determination of the validity or invalidity of the doubtful sacraments to the judgment of the Church when a normal state of affairs shall be restored.




THE SACRED LITURGY

16. The modernists have destroyed the sacred liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church in nearly all of her holy places. The process which brought about this destruction was begun well before the Second Vatican Council and achieved its ultimate expression in the impious New Order of the Mass promulgated by Paul VI in 1969. This destruction was effected by applying to the liturgy the principle of conforming the Church to the modern world. The end result was the New Mass and the many liturgical aberrations produced by it, thereby changing the liturgy from a treasury of Catholic doctrine and piety into a cesspool of Protestantism, modernism, ecuмenism, pantheism, and virtually every error condemned by the Roman Catholic Church.




17. We consequently reject this New Mass as an evil ceremony, since it is a purveyor of sacrilege, error, and heresy rather than the beacon of Catholic light and truth. We equally reject all the sacramental rites and ceremonies reformed in accordance with the modernist principles. In the light of the foregoing, we must conclude that it is objectively a mortal sin to take active part in the New Mass.




18. Since the very authors of the New Mass admit themselves that their destructive activity began before the Second Vatican Council, we logically reject the first steps before the Council which led to the general reform of Vatican II, particularly those produced by Annibale Bugnini in his work as Secretary of the Commission for Liturgical Reform. We do not presume to bind others to this rejection of all the pre-conciliar reforms, but we believe it is both right and expedient for the good of the Church to adhere to the Missal of Saint Pius V, reformed by Clement VIII, Urban VIII, and Saint Pius X. While it is possible that there could be differences of opinion concerning the acceptability of the pre-Conciliar reforms, the principle remains the same: that we should follow a determined set of rules used by the Church at some time before the Council. THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW




19. We utterly reject and condemn the New Code of Canon Law for the sole reason that it is a legal expression of the modernist distortion of the Roman Catholic Church. Its non-Catholic nature is recognizable by the blasphemous, sacrilegious, and impious practices which it condones and mandates concerning the Holy Eucharist, whereby it sanction the giving of the Body and Blood of Christ to heretics and schismatics, and the receiving of Communion from heretical and schismatic sects.




20. Since the Second Vatican Council, the modernists have been granting, purportedly in the name of the Church, annulments to married couples for reasons which have no foundation either in the traditional Canon Law of the Church or in the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning matrimony.




21. We consequently deplore this contempt for the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony commonly found among the modernists operating the diocesan marriage tribunals and the Rota itself. In the practical order, therefore, we refuse to recognize any annulments coming forth from the aforesaid courts unless it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the marriage did not exist in the first place. For, according to Canon 1014 of the Code of Canon Law:
"Marriage enjoys the favor of the law, consequently, in doubt, the validity of the marriage must be maintained until the contrary is proved.




CONCLUSION




22. In the light of the foregoing, we see no other practical course to follow than (1) to adhere with the certitude of the Faith to all of the doctrine and moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church; (2) to continue the work of the Church for the salvation of souls, and fulfill our duties as priests by providing the Catholic faithful with integral Catholic doctrine and unquestionably valid sacraments, using the faculties which the Church provides for such critical situations, for "jurisdiction is not granted a man for his own benefit, but for the good of the people and for the glory of God." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q.8, A.5) Therefore, "since necessity knows no law, in cases of necessity the ordinance of the Church does not hinder." (ibid Q.8, A.6); (3) to reject the destructive modernist alteration of the Catholic liturgy and discipline; (4) to condemn, reprove and reject the poisonous errors of the modernists, refusing the Catholic name to their tenets, worship, and discipline and thereby rejecting ecclesial communion with them. Mindful of the words of Saint Ephraem, Doctor of the Church, bidding us "not to sit with heretics nor associate with apostates," and that "it would be better to teach demons than to try to convince heretics," we deplore every initiative that would seek to make compatible, in one Church, Roman Catholicism and modernism. 23. These things we declare, mindful of St. Paul’s injunction to the Ephesians to "have not fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" and in fulfillment of his command to "reprove them." (5:11) These things we do in the firm certitude of adhering to the indestructible and supernatural unity of the Roman Catholic Church, which extends, unaltered and pure, from her foundation by Our Lord Jesus Christ to His Second Coming, from one end of the earth to the other, from the Church Triumphant in heaven, to the Church Militant on earth, to the Church Suffering in Purgatory, as one unadulterated Church and Faith.

Daegus- A very well though and reasonable position. Is this a new development in your thinking?

Yes, it is. Things are much easier this way. While I definitely cannot say I'm sure I believe Benedict XVI is true Pope, I won't say he isn't. I'll just act in accordance with the presumption that he is true Pope. Fortunately enough, he rarely, if ever, says anything dogmatic so it's not likely that I'll ever have to listen to him talk.

Though I must say.. If he "canonizes" JP2... There's a very, very, very high chance he's not Pope. Canonizations are infallible.. I'm not sure that I believe JP2 is in heaven, given the massive amount of heresies he spewed (and one can acknowledge that he did speak heresy on many occasions without saying he a heretic and therefore not the Pope)

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

Here's the canonization form:

“In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God’s assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define [insert name here] to be a Saint, and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the Saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the Saints.  In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”  

Vatican II did not change the words of canonization. The language used is still the same. So there's no way you can say canonizations have lost the charism of infallibility. It's not possible, or else you could say that virtually every canonization for hundreds upon hundreds of years is doubtful. That is to make a mockery of Holy Mother Church. If the Vatican II claimants (and that's what I'll call them for the time being, because I'm not sure of them) have erred in ANY canonization whatsoever, they are not Pope, period. John Paul (as well as Benedict) really casts doubt on himself in that regard..

While I definitely cannot say I'm sure I believe Benedict XVI is true Pope, I won't say he isn't.

Thats exactly how I think!

Fortunately enough, he rarely, if ever, says anything dogmatic so it's not likely that I'll ever have to listen to him talk.

Actually, I believe the strongest argument going for those who think like us, is that these popes haven't said inimical like, "Christ is not God." Or, "there are gods not 1 God, and 3 Persons," or something like that. Then, I think we would all be forced to say we were sedevecantist. Others can explain that much better.  :rolleyes:

Daegus, you is feisty.  :nunchaku:

And I do the same thing as you when they all "pray for our Holy Father" , I pray for the papacy to be restored.