CathInfo.com

If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:

The longer this crisis goes on and the seat is vacant, one will be left to elect and, who is electable the longer this goes on?

What valid priests are left-do they elect out of their ranks, like electing a new abbot? who then could consecrate said man a Bishop?

How does the vetting go, to insure said man is sound and electable?

(and yes, have heard about the Angelica Pope to come, Sts. Peter and Paul flashing light,etc)

This is the boggle some of us have not in the SV opinion...

Here I find a sincere person without animosity.  This is quite refreshing.  

First, before we try to figure out what to do about our situation we have to know what our situation is.  Once all of good will come to grasp that a valid Pope cannot be a public heretic and cannot bind incentives to impiety on the Church then we have to figure out what to do about it.

The time of the Great Apostasy, the end times, are to be like no other times.  Our Lady said that Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ.  The Mystical Body of Christ goes through a death and Resurrection as well.  The faithful have a legitimate means to validly elect a valid Pope.  And there is a prophecy, which I have not studied, that has been approved by some Saint that says either Elijah or Elias or both will hand pick the next valid Pope.  

Who is to say God would not do such a thing?

The valid Catholic Bishops, yes the SSPX Bishops would certainly be welcome, can, I believe, elect a valid Pope.  They are not going to do it though, apart from some unforeseeable miracle.

But this is all for consideration after the issue of the vacancy is settled.

Our sensus Catholicus can only take us so far:

These papal claimants:

Promulgate and enforce:

1.  A heretical council

2.  Invalid Sacraments

3.  A mass that is an incentive to impiety

4.  Heretical canon law

5.  And repeatedly teach heresy and engage in heretical acts.

Therefore he cannot be Pope.

That is as far as most of us can go.  But we should be able to go that far, if we have the means to study the topic.  I sometimes take for granted that everyone has a computer and the time to study the teaching on the topic.  Some have neither.

But those on this blog would seem to have the means and basic sensus Catholicus to do so.  

Now what to do about it is in the hands of God and our imperfect by hardworking clergy.  

This is a punishment that we all deserve.  By "this" I mean the scarcity of a valid Mass and sacraments and the confusion that surrounds us due to the lack of clear teaching on faith and morals we need to hear but do not, all of which, is the result of our not having a Pope.

Look at it from Satan's perspective.

He cannot destroy the Church through Jesus, Mary or any of the Saints in Heaven.  The only way he could destroy it, and he KNOWS all there is to know about papal infallibility and the necissity of the Pope to unify the Church, the only way he can effectively "destroy" the Church is to get to the head.  He had to infiltrate the Church and have someone "elected" who would not be infallible, who would not be Pope.  That is the only way he could effectively lead billions astray over the course of time.  Once he got the Pope, everything else would come easy.  The only way that v2, invalid sacraments, impious mass, heretical cannon law, could be "bound" on the faithful by a "Pope" would be if a false-pope could be elected and accepted as a valid Pope.  

We deserve this test and trial.  The Church in the 1950's was a white-washed tomb.  It was shiny and bright, but infested and filled with faithful that were merely going through the motions.  They did not study the faith because the figured that was the Priests problem.  They figured they could just go to Mass every week, fast at the right times, and go to Confession sometimes and they could walk into Heaven.  We were lethargic and Christ vomited us out of His mouth.

We are reaping the fruits of that lethargy.  We were rightfully trained to be obedient to legitimate authority, for as Catholics we must.  Get an imposter in there, which we all think we must obey and Satan has got us.  The Church has been crucified but she will also rise.  Like Job, just about everything about her has be destroyed, but like Job, she will rise more glorious than before.  

The laity need not figure out how we get our next Pope, so much as they need to understand that root cause that allowed the Apostasy to be unleashed upon us which is the vacancy of the Holy See.  Once we understand that we no longer have to be miffed at what the "Pope" is or is not doing and all the goings on within the "Church".  It is very important for us to understand that we must submit to the Roman Pontiff and to realize why, in order to stay Catholic, we cannot submit to Father Ratzinger, is because he is not Pope.

Figuring out why God let's this happen or how it could happen, or what can be done about it comes afterwards.

Does that make any sense my friend?

To your first reply, yes, you make sense and are honest and clear in that....as we have had in the past anti-Popes or vacant seats, this present crisis has no precedant, so its a new "ball game"  if you will with solutions,etc....

as for your second reply, need to read/reflect and study.....

i agree with your statement "The Church in the 1950's was a white-washed tomb"

many point to this time as "proof" of everything going great,etc-they list numbers, Churches and schools,etc growing.....but yes, very "on the surface" type of things......

I like your signature.  I was looking for that one myself.  

Hello John. Yes, it's a statement he made on his deathbed that sums up St.Thomas, his profound humility inspite of his towering intellect, his complete confidence in the authority of the Church and his childlike faith in Christ till the end. He is truly the Prince of theologians and Doctors and a model for us lesser mortals who wish to study sacred doctrine.

Your anology is a good one and makes sense though it does not refute the argument. To refute it you would have to show where the Church has taught that there was some kind of limit to the duration.  But in case anyone would try to find such a teaching, I can save you some time by saying you will find no such teaching.

Okay, but I don't accept this, because the idea that the Pope is someone non-essential to the continued propagation and growth of the Church strikes me as incorrect.

I'd say that there is indeed a natural limit to an interregnum, but it comes from another Catholic principle.

If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:

Some think an election could be conducted by the Roman clergy in case of necessity, since it falls to them to elect him who would be Bishop of Rome, to which Bishopric the supreme pontificate is intrinsically attached. But most of these same theologians also held that an election accepted by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy is indubitably valid and must be regarded as such, for such universal acceptance is a sufficient, though not necessary, sign of a certain and valid election. Archbishop Lefebvre himself once cited this as the common teaching of theologians. Msgr. Noort lays out a similar idea.