No, that's not what I am saying. Perhaps one day we will have one if it's God's will.
What I'm saying is that if recognized popes and bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction can be resisted since Vatican II, why not 100 years? Or 500 years? Xavier seems to present the argument that SVism is wrong because of not having a pope or bishops for 60+ years disproves its thesis. I really don't see the difference in degrees of problems when one can resist indefinitely. It seems to undermine the necessity of the Petrine office. Try making this argument with Eastern Orthodox and they would say they resist the pope just like the SSPX, so there is no difference.
Right. BOTH R&R and SV positions have some difficulties with them. Both sides need to acknowledge these difficulties in order to have any kind of constructive discussion. Dogmatists on either side are dividing the Traditional movement. They point to the issues with the other side as conclusive, while they explain away the difficulties with their own and pretend that it's just made up by their opponents. People need to shows some good will and honesty.
Yes, it's a problem for the Holy See to be unoccupied for this long. Yes, it's a problem with R&R so say that the Magisterium could go so badly off the rails as to create a practical requirement to sever communion with the hierarchy. I lean toward SVism because I find the latter problem to be insurmountable, while the former is not. But these are both genuine problems.
Topic: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever? (Read 9369 times)