Everything that Francis does explicitly, Benedict did implicitly.  Yet you condemn Francis, while accepting Benedict.  The point being, the crisis in the Church is confusing.  There's no reason to "shame" anyone on the papal question. 

It wasn't even implicit, what Ratzinger did and "taught".  It's just that there was a PR front to make him seem like a Traditionalist.  If you actually look at his papal acta, they're every bit as bad as Jorge's.  Jorge is just more openly flamboyant about it.  Cardinal "the friendly ecuмenist" Kasper, who knew both men well, stated in a public interview that there's no difference between the theology of Bergoglio and that of Ratzinger, just in the presentation style.

You know very well that word [sedevacantist] carries the connotation of believing no Pope since 1958 - Fr. Dave Nix

Oh, the horror! 

.

I'm confused. So is he a bennyvacantist? If he thinks we are in an interregnum, when does he think the interregnum began?

I found this refutation of Fr. Altman's sedevacantist stance. This guy is an ex-sedevacantist, so he's studied the issues. Not that I agree with everything he says, but he's right about a lot of things.

Hogwash from yet another grifter who (he admits here) makes his living off his media channel(s).  Yeah, it's orthodox solidly Catholic individuals like Father Altman who "harm the body of Christ" ... not Jorge Bergoglio who has done nothing but cause division and chaos.  If Jorge is the pope, then there's absolutely no point being a Catholic ... might as well be an Old Catholic or Eastern Orthodox at that point, since the promises of Christ for the Church and for the papacy mean absolutely nothing.  In fact, some of you are in fact little more than slightly-repackaged Old Catholics.

Apart from moral theology abominations of Bergoglio, there's no heresy related to dogmatic theology that can't be found in the "teachings" of Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger.  So by the same criteria that were articulated by Father Altman in the OP video, Jorge's Conciliar predecessors are also "not Pope"s.

I think Yeti gets that.  I just think he's trying to pinpoint when Fr Altman/Fr Dix date their interregnum.  Do they say it starts when Benny resigned or died (which would make them Bennyvacantists)? Or is there some date that they think Bergoglio lost the papacy (vs never had it)?

Off topic:  I just have to say that today marks my 10th anniversary on CathInfo....Wowser.

Off topic:  I just have to say that today marks my 10th anniversary on CathInfo....Wowser.

.

Congratulations, Vermont!! I don't remember when I joined; I think it was in 2018.

We must pray for Fr. Altman.  He must know at this point that his own ordination is suspect.  He was ordained by "Bp. Listecki???" in 2008.  His priesthood is a train wreck from this vantage point.  The whole "Pope Francis" question is one thing, but his own NO priesthood should be uppermost in his mind right now. 

Absolutely, Bryan.

Louis Verrecchio recently did a podcast on the cancelled priest/Strickland phenomenon, pointing out the inanity and futility of novus ordo conservatism. I'm pretty sure that Altman is associated with this movement. 

Altman is trying to have his cake and eat it. Until he calls into question the entire conciliar establishment, Vatican II, the fake new mass, and doubtful orders, he is sill part of the problem - even though he is very much moving in the right direction. 

He must continue to develop, or become obsolete.

I wonder if there is a traditional bishop who would ordain him if he asked.

I'm pretty sure this is the Louis podcast I referenced:

Apart from moral theology abominations of Bergoglio, there's no heresy related to dogmatic theology that can't be found in the "teachings" of Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger.  So by the same criteria that were articulated by Father Altman in the OP video, Jorge's Conciliar predecessors are also "not Pope"s.

Hopefully it's just a first step for him. 

Unfortunately, he thinks ultra-montanism is a heresy (which is not, for people who don't know).

It is very interesting to see diocesan clergy shift in this direction. Altman certainly won't be the last. I suspect that many of the more traditionalist-leaning priests side with Altman, but keep quiet to save their jobs and careers. 

Many bishops will be quick to basically "laicize on paper", where you are removed from public ministry and can no longer preach in public, but are not (yet) released from clerical state by Rome.