Absurd as an interregnum of fifty years (or thereabouts) may be to Nishant, to my mind it is far more absurd -- and clearly contrary to the Will of Christ -- that, for that same period, the Church should have been governed by a succession of supposed popes who, by their words and deeds, have contributed to the suppression of the Church’s institutions and the progressive elimination of the Catholic faith.

Absurd as an interregnum of fifty years (or thereabouts) may be to Nishant, to my mind it is far more absurd -- and clearly contrary to the Will of Christ -- that, for that same period, the Church should have been governed by a succession of supposed popes who, by their words and deeds, have contributed to the suppression of the Church’s institutions and the progressive elimination of the Catholic faith.

to me, a non-SV, 50 yrs is unprecedented, but by no means absurd.

all in all, one struggles to do right.......for me, do not really think about Pope too much........stick to pre-1962 teachings and practices best as possible...the NO types too Papalidolotry, hang on his every word and jump on bandwagon of statements, common for the K of C types too.....

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...

First of all, not all sedevacantists assume that the vacancy began in 1958.  The election of John XXIII is a convenient point in time because the "changes in the Church" seem to be able to be traced to this event.  However, until Benedict 16, all of the men elected were undoubtedly valid bishops and could have been popes.  I'm not going to get into detailed discussions as to whether they ever validly assumed the papacy but each (other than John Paul 1) made their heresy and/or apostasy so clearly manifest and public at some time that no one (even you) would have described a person who did these things as a "Catholic" unless he were thought to be pope.

Secondly, when a Catholic assumes the bishopric of Rome, if any one of the consecrators is a traditional Catholic bishop, his consecration will be valid.  At some point in time we will have a new pope, though it will take some time before he is universally accepted.

What, I think, will be the greatest sign that a true and valid Catholic bishop has assumed the papacy will be that traditional Catholics begin to accept him while the Novus Ordo catholics and, most especially bishops, go into schism.

As I said, the election of a true pope will be a tumultuous time for the Church.  I would not be surprised if he's only able to remain in the Vatican because the Swiss Guards protects him.  I would not be surprised if nearly all the cardinals declare that they made a mistake and elect an anti-pope as happened once before when the pope returned to Rome.

Whatever happens, it will not be something that only a few people can discern.

Quote from: Sunbeam

Absurd as an interregnum of fifty years (or thereabouts) may be to Nishant, to my mind it is far more absurd -- and clearly contrary to the Will of Christ -- that, for that same period, the Church should have been governed by a succession of supposed popes who, by their words and deeds, have contributed to the suppression of the Church’s institutions and the progressive elimination of the Catholic faith.

Each alternative obviously poses its own significant problems, but as to which is more absurd, or rather which is less certain, I think it is definitely the assertion that these Popes have certainly lost their office by virtue of their actions. In light of the theological certitude that such an eventuality continuing on for now 54 years appears at odds with certain essential constitutive elements of the Church, I'd say we might need to re-evaluate that judgment which may at one time have seemed reasonable. Cardinal Billot's evaluation of Savanarola's arguments may be helpful.

Savanarola was an intelligent man, he was no fool. And he was thoroughly convinced, of Pope Alexander VI that "the man is not a Christian - he does not even believe in any longer that there is a God". Had the Pope lost his office? But Cardinal Billot in describing the matter merely applied some generally accepted principles about universal acceptance and said that Pope Alexander VI undoubtedly was the Pope and most later ecclesiastical writers agree with him.

To me, that shows which is more certain.

Edit: Oh, and Roscoe, I think sede-impedism is in some respects a more powerful theory than sede vacantism. But, as for Cardinal Siri, by all accounts he accepted the Council, the new Mass and accorded public veneration to the Popes, while not supporting any sedevacantist movement.

Siri has been accused of accepting V2 and celebrating the NO.....something to weed out there......
Also, accepting the election and stepping down, for whatever reason, is a sticking point with me. Siri might have been elected, true enough, but he stepepd down, reason not as important as the step-down......certainly to me being elected does not automatically=Pope, hence after his step down, that was that.....refused to be crowned,etc....seems somewhere in history, some one was elected and was not formally installed prior to death, seems like that person is listed as non-Pope......could be wrong..

I would have to agree. I suppose the Siri Thesis is a possibility, but I have a difficult time accepting the notion that man could be elected Pope, then turn around and deny his own election, submit to the election of someone else, and then celebrate the Novus Ordo.

Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question.

I WISH ALL PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT SURE ABOUT SV WERE AS INTELLECTUALLY HONEST ABOUT THINGS AS YOU ARE NICHANT.  IT IS QUITE REFRESHING TO DISCUSS THE INSANITY OF OUR TIMES WITH ONE WHO STICKS TO THE TOPIC AND GIVES A REASON FOR HIS ASSERTIONS.  

I WILL WRITE IN CAPS TO DISTINGUIS YOU FROM ME.

Yes, that is the typical argument, but it can be reduced to absurdity in various ways, which I won't enter into now.

YOU COULDN’T ENTER WOULDN’T ENTER INTO IT WHEN YOU POSTED IT, BUT CAN YOU ENTER INTO IT NOW, OR SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE?

But what I'll say is the proof of a natural limit to an interregnum comes from Catholic doctrine, implied in Pope Leo XIII's teaching and laid out in Pope Pius XII's teaching as well is that Bishops receive their episcopal office and the ordinary power of jurisdiction along with it not in virtue of their consecration alone, nor directly from Christ, but rather immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.

THE JURISDICTION ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED YET.  (THE MAJORITY SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT OUR CATHOLIC [TRADITIONAL] BISHOPS ONLY HAVE SUPPLIED JURISDICTION, BUT HAS THIS BEEN PROVEN?)  BUT EVEN IF THIS WAS TO BE PROVEN, DOES THAT SOMEHOW MAKE THE CHURCH DISAPPEAR?  THE VALID BISHIPS AND PRIESTS SEEM VISIBLE TO ME

This affects the nature of episcopal consecrations during an interregnum and deprives those thus consecrated of an essential power which would otherwise be proper to them. If the Church were thus to continue in this way for too long a time, it is evident, that the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction would cease,

DO YOU CLAIM THE N.O. BISHOPS HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION?  THIS WOULD MEAN THAT YOU BELIEVE THE NO CONSECRATIONS TO BE VALID OR THAT YOU HOLD TO THAT THERE MUST BE A 90+ YEAR-OLD VALIDLY CONSECRATED NONE-HERETIC BISHOP SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD THAT NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT WHICH IS MORE DIFFICULT TO HANG YOUR HAT ONTO THAN A LONG-TERM VACANCY.  AND EVEN THEN, SUPPOSE ONE WAS VALIDLY CONSECRATED IN 1968 AT THE AGE OF 40 WHICH PUT HIM AT 84.  HOW MANY 84 PLUS YEAR-OLD BISHOPS ARE NOT HERETICS?  WHAT VALID 84 YEAR-OLD PLUS BISHOP EXISTS THAT DOES NOT THINK RATZINGER IS ORTHODOX.  IF ONE EXISTS WHO KNOWS THE NEW MASS IS INVALID WHY IS HE NOT MAKING HIMSELF KNOWN AND PROVIDING US WITH SACRAMENTS AND CONSECRATING BISHOPS FOR THE TRUE CHURCH?  THAT WOULD CERTAINLY APPEAR TO MAKE HIM LESS VISIBLE THAN OUR CATHOLIC [TRADITIONAL] BISHOPS.  HOW MANY MORE YEARS DO WE HAVE TO INSIST THAT THERE IS A VALID BISHOP, WITH ORDINARY JURISDICTION, THAT NO ONE IS ABLE TO POINT OUT (DO RETIRED BISHOPS HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION?) IN EXISTENCE?  DOES THIS NOT BECOME LESS AND LESS FEASIBLE THAN A LONG VACANCY AS THE YEARS PASS?  

 which again reflects God's most wise design in constituting His Church with the person not just the empty office of the Pope essential for said transmission. But jurisdiction is a requirement of Apostolicity, and it is of divine Faith that the Catholic Church is Apostolic and cannot cease to be so, as she would have, if there were no orthodox Catholic Bishop in the world possessing ordinary jurisdiction. Hence the notion of an indefinitely long interregnum is assuredly incorrect, and would probably merit some censure, most likely at least "erroneous in theology" for being the contrary of a dogmatic fact.

CAN YOU BACK THESE ASSERTIONS WITH PROOF FROM AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES?  

GOD ALSO MOST WISELY INSTITUTED A PAPACY WHOSE VALID CLAIMANTS WILL NOT ERR OR GIVE THE FAITHFUL STONES WHEN THEY ASK FOR BREAD.  WHICH SEEMS MORE FEASIBLE, HERETICAL POPES THAT LEAD US TO HELL, OR A LONG VACANCY?  

AND ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE THE WEAKEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOUR ASSERTIONS, GIVING THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.

BUT THE MORE CERTAIN TEACHING, WHICH NO ONE CAN LEGITIMATELY DENY, IS THAT A PUBLIC HERETIC CANNOT HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE, BUT PUBLIC HERETICS HAVE CLAIMED TO HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS.  THEREFORE. . .

BUT EVEN STRONGER THAN THAT ABOVE ARGUMENT, WHICH IS AS STRONG AS IS NEEDED, IS THAT THE CHURCH CANNOT GIVE US THE NEW MASS, FAULTY SACRAMENTS, A HERETICAL CODE OF CANON LAW, A HERETICAL COUNCIL, FALSE SAINTS AND A WEAKENED EXORCISM, A HERETICAL CATECHISM, AND ALL BE APPROVED BY MEN WHOSE LIFE IS AN ENDLESS LIST OF HERETICAL TEACHINGS AND ACTIONS.  BUT THE PURPORTED POPES OF THE PAST 50 YEARS HAVE DONE ALL OF THE ABOVE.  THEREFORE. . .

FURTHER, I ARGUE THAT NOWHERE HAS THE CHURCH TAUGHT THAT THERE IS A LIMIT TO THE LENGTH OF AN INTERREGNUM, AND ALL ADMIT THAT WE HAVE HAD WELL OVER 200 INTERREGNUMS.  YOU WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE TEACHING [OF NO LONG INTERREGNUM] IS IMPLIED, BUT THE TEACHING THAT A HERETIC CANNOT BE POPE IS MORE THAN IMPLIED, IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY TAUGHT AND SITS THERE AS DIVINE LAW WHICH CANNOT BE CHANGED OR PROVEN FALSE.  SO WHEN STUCK WITH A “CHOICE” BETWEEN ONE OR THE OTHER DO WE GO WITH THE IMPLIED TEACHING OR THE VERIFIABLE FACT?

GOD DEPRIVED THE JєωS ACCESS TO THEIR TEMPLE FOR 500 YEARS.  HE HAS DEPRIVED MOST OF THE WORLD OF A TRUE MASS, SACRAMENTS FOR 50.  WOULD YOU TRULY INSIST THAT GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW AN INTERREGNUM OF THE SAME LENGTH OR LONGER?  THE QUESTION SEEMS TO HAVE THE ANSWER, AS THERE BEING NO TRUE MASS OR SACRAMENTS FOR ALL THIS TIME COULD ONLY MEAN WE HAVE NOT HAD A TRUE POPE ALL THIS TIME.  BUT THIS SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ALL WHO ADMIT THE ABOVE FACTS REGARDING THE COUNCIL, SACRAMENTS, MASS, CANON LAW, CATECHISM, TEACHINGS AND HERETICAL ACTS OF THE CONCILIAR LEADERS.

THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR CHRIST TO GO TO THE TROUBLE OF BUILDING HIS CHURCH ON THE PAPACY IF ALL THE ABOVE CAN HAPPEN AND BE MAINTAINED UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF VALID POPE WHO WAS GARUNTEED TO BE INFALLIBLE AND WHOSE CHURCH IS INDEFECTABLE AND IS TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH AND GUARD THE SACRAMENTS AND LITURGY FROM CORRUPTION.  AGAINST ALL THIS EVIDENCE IT WOULD SEEM THE ARGUMENT THAT GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW SUCH A LONG INTERREGNUM SEEMS WEAK AT BEST.

BUT AT LEAST YOU TRY TO BACK THE NO LONG INTERRUGNUM ASSERTION WITH THE REASON OF ORDINARY JURISDICTION SOMEHOW BEING NECESSARY FOR THE CHURCH’S VISIBILITY.  

PERHAPS WE SHOULD OPEN A THREAD ON WHETHER ORDINARY JURISDICTION IS IN FACT NECESSARY FOR THE CHURCH TO ACTUALLY EXIST.

THIS WOULD BE ASSUMING THAT THE TRUE BISHOPS DO NOT HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION WHICH IS A THREAD IN ITSELF.

REGARDING SIRI:  I KNOW A BIG PROMOTER OF THE THEORY HAS PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE.  I USED TO BELIEVE IT TO BE HIGHLY PROBABLE.  AFTERALL, FROM SATAN’S AND THE FREE-MASONS POINT OF VIEW, BOTH OF WHOM KNOW THAT THE POPE TRULY IS INFALLIBLE  WHEN CATHOLIC AND VALIDLY ELEICTED, IF THEY COULD GET AN INVALIDLY “ELECTED” GUY IN HE WOULDN’T BE INFALLIBLE AND COULD PROMOTE THE SATANIC/FREEMASONIC AGENDA OF NOT CONDEMNING COMMUNISM, SQASHING OUR LADY’S PLAN TO HELP US AVOID THE GREAT APOSTACY AND STOPPING THE ERRORS OF RUSSIA, ALL BUT ABOLISH THE ORDINARY MEANS OF SANCTIFYING GRACE OF ENTERING THE WORLD THROUGH VALID SACRAMENTS ADMINSTERED BY VALID BISHOPS AND PRIESTS AND ASSURE US THAT EVERYONE GOES TO HEAVEN AS THEY ARE LEADING US TO JOIN SATAN IN THE FREEMASONS IN HELL.  IT WAS TRIED WITH THE ELECTION OF PIUS X.  THEY WOULD CERTAINLY TRY IT AGAIN.  I JUST MAINTAIN THAT THEIR SUCCESS IN DOING THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU MIGHT READ.  ADDITTIONALLY I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE FAULTY FOR ONE TO DEFEND THE SV REALITY ON SUCH AN UNPROVABLE THING, BUT SHOULD ONLY BE USED AS A COMPLIMENTARY THEORY AT BEST.  THE FACT OF OUR SITUATION NEEDS TO BE PROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THOSE OF GOOD WILL FIRST; SO ALL OF US OF GOOD WILL CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.  THAT SOMETHING, I BELIEVE WOULD BE TO ELECT A VALID POPE WITH THE VALID CLERGY PUTTING THE ELECTION TOGETHER.  OF COURSE THIS WOULD MEAN THE VALID [SV] CLERGY ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE WORLD WOULD THINK OF THEM IF THEY DID THIS.  

I TEND TO BELIEVE THAT THAT VACANCY ACTUALLY MAY HAVE ENDED IN 1964 WHEN MONTINI APPROVED THE NEW TEACHING THAT THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST IS NOT ONE AND THE SAME AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUT THAT IT SUBSISTS IN (AND OUTSIDE OF) THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THOUGH IMPERFECTLY OUTSIDE IT.  THIS IS HERESY.  “APPROVED” IN A “COUNCIL”.  THE DOcuмENTS, APPROVED AFTER LUMEN GENTIUM ARE ALSO CLEARLY HERETICAL.   I SAY THIS WHILE PERSONALLY FAVORING THE IDEA THAT JOHN 23 WAS NOT VALID BASED ON ALL THE cuмULITIVE THINGS WE KNOW ABOUT HIM AND HIS “PAPACY” NOW, SUCH AS HIS BEING SUSPECTED OF MODERNISM AND BEING A FREE-MASON AND BEING EXTOLLED BY THE FREE-MASONS.  THE LITURGICAL CHANGES UNDER HIM WERE NOT IN HIS FAVOR, NOR WAS THE FACT THAT HE REFUSED TO REVEAL THE THIRD SECRET.

I HOPE THIS LONG LARGE-CAPPED RESPONSE DOES NOT APPEAR DISRESPECTFUL IN ANYWAY.  

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I HAVE MISREPRESENTED YOUR THOUGHTS IN ANY WAY AND CLARIFY.  ALSO PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU AGREE WITH ANY OR ALL THAT I SAY ABOVE OR SHOW WHERE MY ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK OR INCORRECT.  I WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT I KNOW NO IF I HAD NOT LISTENED TO CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM IN THE PAST.  I AM ALL EARS TO THE CHARITABLE WHO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION RESPECTFULLY.  I WOULD LIKE TO THINK I AM ALL EARS TO THE UNCHARITABLE WHO STILL MAINTAIN LOGIC IN THEIR ARGUMENTATION AS WELL, BUT THIS IS MORE DIFFICULT.  THIS IS WHY I AM PLEASED TO BE IN A DISCUSSION WITH YOU.

GOD BLESS YOU MY FRIEND,
AND MARY KEEP,
JOHN

Nishant,

I'm about to read your response, but I want to point out right away, that the style of your response is better than mine as your quotes in the white of me and writing in normal case has a better look to it than my responding in caps for distinguishment.

There is one another point I have not mentioned yet. It's some thing theologians commonly teach, that given the universal acceptance of a particular person as Pope, all antecedent precluding conditions, at least as of that moment, are presumed not to exist.

"At least as of that moment"  I have heard that.  But I am not sure how that can change the objective reality that a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office.

THE JURISDICTION ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED YET.  (THE MAJORITY SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT OUR CATHOLIC [TRADITIONAL] BISHOPS ONLY HAVE SUPPLIED JURISDICTION, BUT HAS THIS BEEN PROVEN?)  

Almost all traditional Bishops themselves acknowledge it, I believe. At least the St.Pius X society has frequently written about it, and Archbishop Lefebvre certainly knew it.

Agreed.

This is also true with the SV Bishops.  But I have not read a good explanation on this from anyone.

On the practical and pastoral level, supplied jurisdiction more than suffices

.

Suffices for visibility only or also for apostolicity?  If not apostolicity, why not?  Are they not still valid successors of the Apostles?

But if we are going to say the Pope and all the Bishops have lost their office, that is where the problem begins in my opinion.

How so?  Is your response that we lack Apostolicity in the traditional ranks?  Can you please elaborate?

Anyway, you asked for some sources. Canon 147 of the Code of Canon law mentions that episcopal office can only be granted by the competent authority.

This is correct (in ordinary circuмstances?) Is there an exception to that in extraordinary circuмstances?

Mystici Corporis Christi reinforces the point by teaching that episcopal consecration cannot give the power of ordinary jurisdiction by itself, but that this is only received immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.

I have not double checked for myself but I do not doubt the veracity of that statement.  But I'll mention again that I am not sure if that is the case in extraordinary times such as ours.  Is the claim based on intrinsic necessity?  Is it an unchangeable discipline?

Most theologians and clergy know and recognize this, both today and earlier. I believe Msgr.Fenton and others have written about it.

Correct.  And this, I believe helps clarify the jurisdiction question [in normal times?]  In fact I believe Msgr. Fenton was basing his teaching on Mystici Corporis Christi.

It is not only the visibility of the Church that is at stake here, but her Apostolicity as well, which requires that she always be constituted as a society wherein some rule by virtue of their office and some obey according to their state as lay faithful.

This brings me to the question of whether or not the traditional Bishops continue the apostolicity of the Church as things currently stand.  If not, why not?  Because they do not have ordinary jurisdiction?  If that point is granted, though it is not a point which I am willing to concede yet, are not the traditional bishops valid successors of the Apostles and does that not count for apostolicity?

All agree that a Church that lacks jurisdiction (as for example, a schismatic sect would lack) would thereby and for that reason cease to be Apostolic.

I cannot grant you that.  I do admit that is the vast majority view no.  Though it would be interesting to know Fenton's views were he still alive today, or Pius V or X for that matter.  I will also add the obvious, that the traditional Bishops are not a schismatic sect.

But it is of divine faith that the Catholic Church must be Apostolic.

MOST READILY AGREED! :-)

It suffices that the Pope not have lost his office for jurisdiction to continue to be transmitted.

Just to make sure.  Do you insist that a valid Pope must hold office legitimately in order for ordinary jurisdiction to be transmitted?  Has this been the case during long interregnums in the past and during times of great persecution and when corresponding great distances was difficult if not impossible.  I believe bishops, in the past, during the history of the Church, before v"2", have consecrated Bishops, not against the expressed wish of the Pope, but because they could not communicate with him, and needed to continue the Church in their area.  That is a guess.  Please tell me if I am wrong.

But yes, while many episcopal sees are probably vacant due to heresy, I do believe the new rite is valid.

Regarding the new rite being valid, I would disagree.  But I suppose that is another thread.  Many theologians teach that merely messing with the rite causes doubt.  And they also teach a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament.  And as strong as that teaching is, it is the weakest of arguments agains the validity of the new rite.  We all should agree that they are at least doubtul, and therefore to be avoided.  Yet we depend on it for the visibility and apostilicity of the Church?

Quote:
YOU HOLD TO THAT THERE MUST BE A 90+ YEAR-OLD VALIDLY CONSECRATED NONE-HERETIC BISHOP SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD THAT NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT WHICH IS MORE DIFFICULT TO HANG YOUR HAT ONTO THAN A LONG-TERM VACANCY.

This, I believe, is the so-called "Bishop in the woods" thesis of John Lane and others.

I don't like his view on this either.  But I am also not ready to admit that our traditional bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction yet.  Which does not give me any points in this debate I admit.  But I am also not ready to admit that the visibility and apostolicity of the Church does not exist in the traditional bishops.

It has its own attendant problems, but you see, no one would need to hypothesise such a thing if all did not agree that there absolutely had to be at least one Bishop left in the world with ordinary jurisdiction.

The thought of hypothesising about such things seems burdensome and disagreeable to me as well.  Additionally, how visible is the Bishop that no one can see?

The recognition that this must be the case is why we ought, in my opinion, not to be too quick to conclude with absolute certainty that every such and such a person has definitely lost his office, for such conclusions, if treated as proved, would prove too much.

Again I would disagree for now, as I believe, until the contary is proven, that our traditional bishops are both visible and apostolic.

Quote:
GOD ALSO MOST WISELY INSTITUTED A PAPACY WHOSE VALID CLAIMANTS WILL NOT ERR OR GIVE THE FAITHFUL STONES WHEN THEY ASK FOR BREAD.  WHICH SEEMS MORE FEASIBLE, HERETICAL POPES THAT LEAD US TO HELL, OR A LONG VACANCY?  

It is true, but as the examples of history show, including from Holy Writ, it pleases Divine Justice to punish His people by sending unworthy shepherds to them. The Church has no remedy for the actions of a vicious Pope, even one whose dubious actions may cause immense harm and scandal to the Church, except of course for the weapon of prayer. Msgr.Journet gives an excellent description of this, I believe Hobbledehoy pasted the work in another topic.

I believe the Church may infact have a remedy.  If the masses who call themselves Catholic, knew or cared what heresy was, I believe a declaration on the fact of the vacancy could be made and a valid Pope elected.  But the vast majority of all who call themselves Catholic, if they cared at all, would think it crazy to even suggest that Ratzinger teaches heresy and has done so for his entire clerical life.  So we sit here twisting in the wind fighting each other (not me and you) bringing God's Just Judgments on our heads.  I do wish the masses could be educated on Catholic Truth and act accordingly.  But prayer, fasting, the brown scapular, the miraculous medal and a good life well spent certainly would not hurt.

Quote:
AND ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE THE WEAKEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOUR ASSERTIONS, GIVING THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.

BUT THE MORE CERTAIN TEACHING, WHICH NO ONE CAN LEGITIMATELY DENY, IS THAT A PUBLIC HERETIC CANNOT HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE, BUT PUBLIC HERETICS HAVE CLAIMED TO HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS.  THEREFORE. . .

BUT EVEN STRONGER THAN THAT ABOVE ARGUMENT, WHICH IS AS STRONG AS IS NEEDED, IS THAT THE CHURCH CANNOT GIVE US THE NEW MASS, FAULTY SACRAMENTS, A HERETICAL CODE OF CANON LAW, A HERETICAL COUNCIL, FALSE SAINTS AND A WEAKENED EXORCISM, A HERETICAL CATECHISM, AND ALL BE APPROVED BY MEN WHOSE LIFE IS AN ENDLESS LIST OF HERETICAL TEACHINGS AND ACTIONS.  BUT THE PURPORTED POPES OF THE PAST 50 YEARS HAVE DONE ALL OF THE ABOVE.  THEREFORE. . .  

But Savanarola was equally convinced "with all certitude" that Pope Alexander VI was "not Pope and cannot in any way be".

Do we know for absolute certain that Alexader VI was not Pope.  As certain as the validity of canonized Saints before V"2"?  Or is this merely an opinion of is held by the majority.

Also, it would seem that Savanarola, who I know nothing about, rightly taught that a public heretic could not legitimately hold office.  And the counter to his thought was not that a public heretic could legitimately hold office, but that he was not in fact a public heretic who insisted on his heres,y once corrected, if he was a public heretic at all.

This is why I believe, as Archbishop Lefebvre did in his dealing with the Popes, that the more prudent course of action even in the face of apparent heresy is that followed by St.Athanasius with Pope Liberius, St.Maximus with Pope Honorius, Cardinal Orsini with Pope John XXII, to prescind from any judgment of persons whatsoever even one that may seem reasonable and stick to what is absolutely certain in terms of the faith, which no authority in heaven or on earth can compel us to change.

This is a good strong finish by you with apparrent merit.  But my above quote fits here as well.  I am not sure that is "de fide" or whatever other theological term that would apply that we would be bound to accept that all the above named Popes were in fact valid Popes during the entirity of their Pontificats.  But supposing that they were, which I must grant is possible and even probable, the defense of their legitimacy was not that pertinacious public heretics could legitimately hold office but that they were in fact NOT pertinacious public heretics, at least according to the majority view who hold that they were in fact valid Popes during the entirety of their pontificate.

Your argument would only have strong merit if those corrected for holding the minority opinion were corrected for holding that a public heretic cannot be Pope rather than being corrected for insisting that he was in fact a public heretic.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Lastly, I still maintain, that the Divine Law, that a public heretic cannot be Pope, is more certain than the objection your bring up that a long interregnum is not possible.