Author Topic: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever? (Read 2326 times)

songbird · « **Reply #60 on:** July 28, 2020, 05:58:48 PM »

Saying the new order heretical mass is enough for me to say, the whole new order is shot! That is the total destruction of the "Deposits of Faith"!

Is this pope against Faith and Morals? Absolutely! Any so-called clergy who does as well, is against The Deposits of Faith! That is heretical at its worst! Demonic!

I don't believe we have to so deeply search. God did not make us as such. His Son taught in parables easy to understand that a wolf in sheeps clothing kills!

A tree that is not good, will not put out good fruit. You WILL know them by their fruits.

Stanley N · « **Reply #61 on:** July 28, 2020, 07:21:51 PM »

Quote from: Struthio on July 28, 2020, 02:44:31 PM

DH is against common sense. DH claims that there is a God-given right to act against God-given law. The basic principle of natural right is: Do what's good, omit what's bad. Yet DH claims that there is a natural right to do what's bad (worship idols).

Is that what DH says?

"Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."

Recall you brought up DH as an example of an allegedly heretical teaching to which all bishops allegedly adhere. It's probably the strongest argument for sedevacantism. (Certainly better than the N.O. because the latin Roman mass was not forbidden, and the eastern churches are also available.) But even if someone thought there seemed to be a contradiction between DH and the past, one could suspend judgment rather than separate from the hierarchy.

LeDeg · « **Reply #62 on:** July 28, 2020, 07:41:32 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on July 28, 2020, 05:45:42 AM

The reason you do not see any difference LeDeg, is because your conclusion in and of itself being improper, bespeaks of no difference.

As my sig says: The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

As such, the question should be;
At what point may we disobey God in order to obey the pope, who is a man? 60 years? 100 years? Or 500 years? The answer is of course, never.

The whole sede mindset, their lex credendi, hinges on the idea that the pope is supposed to be something almost celestial, at least something more than a man who is incapable of doing what man is capable of doing - combined with the idea that their knowledge of his sins (of heresy, apostasy etc.) authorizes and qualifies them to decide to dethrone him, to deprive him of his office, which is precisely what they have decided to do. They believe to do this is true, even courageous Catholicism.

As faithful Catholics in regards to the pope, it is our duty to pray daily for the pope, always has been, always will be. As recent history proves, Catholics can keep the faith and grow in it, and there is nothing to stop us from even becoming great saints, even though the popes and hierarchy are blatantly heretical, provided that through it all we adhere to the highest principle in the Church. It really is not at all complicated.

*That* is the Church's indefectibility working.

Stubborn, have not the popes after Vatican I and before Vatican II taught there can be no disagreement with the pope?
"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104)

"All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven [Mt 16:19]. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith [Lk 22:32]. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians."
"Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants — whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great — to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors."
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscuм, nn. 16-17)
"This chair [of Peter] is the center of Catholic truth and unity, that is, the head, mother, and teacher of all the Churches to which all honor and obedience must be offered. Every church must agree with it because of its greater preeminence — that is, those people who are in all respects faithful…."
"Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion. Therefore, because of your special faith in the Church and special piety toward the same Chair of Peter, We exhort you to direct your constant efforts so that the faithful people of France may avoid the crafty deceptions and errors of these plotters and develop a more filial affection and obedience to this Apostolic See. Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees."
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, nn. 1,7)

"In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See."
"And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff."
"Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live."
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 24)

I am failing to see where the line is for when and where the Church just continues on and just ignores what the claimants to the chair of St Peter are saying and doing. Where am I wrong?

LeDeg · « **Reply #63 on:** July 28, 2020, 07:46:50 PM »

An interesting article by Msgr. Fenton.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

Struthio · « **Reply #64 on:** July 28, 2020, 08:42:17 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on July 28, 2020, 07:21:51 PM

Quote from: Struthio
Yet DH claims that there is a natural right to do what's bad (worship idols).

Is that what DH says?

Yes, DH says that the alleged right to religious freedom is a natural right:

Quote from: DH 2

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.

An alleged right based on the alleged nature of man, and known by "reason itself".

Quote from: Stanley N on July 28, 2020, 07:21:51 PM

"Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."

That's simply a damn bloody lie. The "traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ" is not left untouched, when these damn heretics say that societies have a duty to provide for religious freedom for all.

Struthio · « **Reply #65 on:** July 28, 2020, 09:06:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 28, 2020, 08:46:31 AM

[...] In order to be even a material heretic, however, pertinacity is required. [...]

Now, here's the problem for a Pope. Popes are required by their duty of state to not be ignorant of Catholic doctrine. Consequently, any ignorance of Catholic dogma on the part of Bergoglio is culpible. It would be a different story for some ignorant peasant who had barely been catechized. Bergoglio's heretical statements are presumed to be culpable and pertinacious. Not to mention that Bergoglio has completely blown off attempts at correction regarding Amoris Laetitita. He clearly refuses to be corrected, and that's prima facie evidence of pertinacity.

It's a "problem" for all fathers of the robber council who didn't reject it.

The latin word pertinax means stubborn and in the given context expresses the notion that the heretic knows the doctrine of the Church and instead of accepting it piously like a lamb, rejects it stubbornly like an ass.

In the case of the thousands of putative bishops assembled to teach to the whole world in the 1960s, the reasonable presumption is that they were well aware of those Church doctrines which are relevant to the topics they debated and then taught about. And if they weren't well aware in advance, their duty of state was to make sure they are. They got no excuse. And if they think they have: None has come forward to present his excuse.

Some mix up pertinacity with the two admonitions, the Apostle is talking about. But the admonitions are not a prerequisite for the heretic to be a heretic. And pertinacity just means stubborn rejection in spite of the knowledge that it's Church teaching they reject.

Stanley N · « **Reply #66 on:** July 28, 2020, 09:59:45 PM »

Quote from: Struthio on July 28, 2020, 08:42:17 PM

Quote
Quote from: Stanley N on Today at 07:21:51 PM
Quote
Quote from: Struthio

Quote
Yet DH claims that there is a natural right to do what's bad (worship idols).
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Is that what DH says?[/font][/size]

Yes, DH says that the alleged right to religious freedom is a natural right:

That's not what the question was about. Given that DH affirms a duty to follow the true religion, does DH say there's a right to worship idols?

And again, the point of this discussion is not DH itself, but SVism.

We come across what appears to be a contradiction in church docuмents (or Scripture). The Church fathers do often write or say things that can appear rather different than 20th century Catholicism, so this is not an exclusively V2 issue. What is a Catholic reaction? Perhaps wondering if context might be different? Perhaps humbly considering our understanding might be wrong? Perhaps it is a legitimate development of doctrine? Perhaps even suspending judgment? Yes, these seem like options for a Catholic. But being so certain that our understanding of an apparent dilemma is correct and the hierarchy is wrong, to the point of declaring that hierarchy no longer exists? Does that really seem like a Catholic response?

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #67 on:** July 29, 2020, 03:01:43 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I lean sedeprivationist and none of it is relevant

First, it is relevant to everyone if someone falls into open heresy, and the Ecclesia-Vacantist opinion that the entire hierarchy is heretical is certainly itself heretical. It is heretical irrespective of whether it is held by sedes like Struthio or R&R like Stubborn. I respond to whoever denies it, docuмenting from Church Catechisms and other official sources, that it is impossible.

I have been replying to 3 separate errors (1) The entire hierarchy can defect into heresy or die (2) Papal appointment is not necessary for ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity, and (3) the Church can elect a new Pope without Ordinaries issuing a juridical declaration first. I believe you agree with, or at least don't contest, (1) or (3), but you do deny 2. Is that right?

With regard to Sede-Privationism, here's the thing: Sede-Privationism says the material Pope remains a Pope-elect only. In such a case, the Bishops designated by him would remain Bishop-designates only. It is the universal Jurisdiction of the Supreme Pastor that effects the conferral of particular jurisdiction of the Bishop. If you disagree with this, you disagree with the doctrine as explained by the Theologians, including Msgr. Fenton and Cardinal Ottaviani. So I'm not disturbed by the objection of Sede-privationism.

This is a real problem for sedevacantism, whether sedevacantists and quasi-sedevacantists want to admit it or not. A 100 year interregnum is clearly heretical and contradicts the defined dogma on St. Peter's Perpetual Successors. So what is the limit?

No sedevacantist even wants to touch that question? The clear limit, upon reflection, is seen to be when all Papally appointed Bishops die.

Stubborn · « **Reply #68 on:** July 29, 2020, 04:53:04 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on July 28, 2020, 05:29:18 PM

This is Protestant rhetoric right here. "Nevermind the hierarchy, nevermind the pope and whether or not he's legitimate or a heretic or what have you.

That's Catholic, not protism, but beyond that you are correct - when the hierarchy and when the pope are in error and want us to join them in their error, we do not mind them because if we do, we will offend God. So yes, never mind what they want because what they want is wrong - period. We know right from wrong because for 2000 years prior to V2, the Church has taught us right from wrong - *that's* how we *know* right from wrong which is why we do not mind them, because we are supposed to know right from wrong.

Questioning their legitimacy or illegitimacy never even enters the equation. The main thing that questioning or deciding their legitimacy does is bring in confusion, the result of confusion is division.

Quote

Just focus on your own private interpretation of what God wants."

What private interpretation? You are implying that for 2000 years the Church never taught the whole world what we must do and what we must not do - this same thinking exemplifies faithless NOers who forgot, or ignore, or do not know what the Church has taught all men prior to V2.

Stubborn · « **Reply #69 on:** July 29, 2020, 06:14:32 AM »

Quote from: LeDeg on July 28, 2020, 07:41:32 PM

Stubborn, have not the popes after Vatican I and before Vatican II taught there can be no disagreement with the pope?
"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104)

Certainly correct in that Pope Pius XI is entirely orthodox in everything he says here. If what he says in bold is to be taken literally as a certain, unchangeable truth, then the NO is in fact the Church, which we know is not true because of 2000 years worth of Church teachings and not our private judgement. This is the same reason that we know with certainty that the Supreme Pastor has fallen into error.

Yet the undeniable truth of the matter is that if what Pope Pius XI says here is in fact to be taken as a type of fallible Gospel, literally and unchangeable, then all trads everywhere, including sedes, are the ones in error because per the above bolded, he appears to be saying that the pope cannot err in all things that touch upon faith or morals.

You must accept and be clear in your mind that we, us, you and I and all trads, are not relying on any private interpretation of V2 nor false autonomy of human reason - so these quotes certainly do not apply to us in this present crisis. Who knows - perhaps the next crisis they would apply, but not in this crisis.

The reason for this is because in this crisis what we are doing is, *not* relying on our own interpretation, rather, we *are* relying on the 2000 years worth of teachings of the Church prior to V2 that taught and bound us, not only *that* we must believe, but also *what* we must believe in order to be saved. We know wrong when we see it because the Church taught us to know wrong when we see it. That's how we know right from wrong when we see it, it is a main part of our faith.

It is because of those teachings and not our private interpretation that we know with certainty of faith that what he said above only applies to us whenever our Supreme Pastor teaches things that do not conflict with or contradict what the Church has always taught....which goes without saying, just as he did not say above.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #70 on:** July 29, 2020, 08:40:46 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on July 29, 2020, 03:01:43 AM

First, it is relevant to everyone if someone falls into open heresy, and the Ecclesia-Vacantist opinion that the entire hierarchy is heretical is certainly itself heretical. It is heretical irrespective of whether it is held by sedes like Struthio or R&R like Stubborn. I respond to whoever denies it, docuмenting from Church Catechisms and other official sources, that it is impossible.

I have been replying to 3 separate errors (1) The entire hierarchy can defect into heresy or die (2) Papal appointment is not necessary for ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity, and (3) the Church can elect a new Pope without Ordinaries issuing a juridical declaration first. I believe you agree with, or at least don't contest, (1) or (3), but you do deny 2. Is that right?

With regard to Sede-Privationism, here's the thing: Sede-Privationism says the material Pope remains a Pope-elect only. In such a case, the Bishops designated by him would remain Bishop-designates only. It is the universal Jurisdiction of the Supreme Pastor that effects the conferral of particular jurisdiction of the Bishop. If you disagree with this, you disagree with the doctrine as explained by the Theologians, including Msgr. Fenton and Cardinal Ottaviani. So I'm not disturbed by the objection of Sede-privationism.

This is a real problem for sedevacantism, whether sedevacantists and quasi-sedevacantists want to admit it or not. A 100 year interregnum is clearly heretical and contradicts the defined dogma on St. Peter's Perpetual Successors. So what is the limit?

No sedevacantist even wants to touch that question? The clear limit, upon reflection, is seen to be when all Papally appointed Bishops die.

We've gone over this several times before and you refuse to even recognize any of the arguments against your position. You are not sincerely seeking the truth. You are just pushing an agenda.

As for your implied claim that the entire hierarchy consists solely of the ordinaries, you should read The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology by Pietro Parente because there you will find that the hierarchy also includes all clerics. And even the home-aloners have reasonable arguments for why they think that all clerics have defected as well. I don't agree with them but I don't think their position is completely without any reasonable basis. You on the other hand have elevated your opinion to the level of dogma and that is completely unreasonable. I won't say that your arguments are completely unfounded but they are not certain so accusing others of heresy on these points is morally wrong. On the other hand you refuse to accuse the Novus Ordo ordinaries (including Chaos Frank) who have not only denied word-for-word dogmas of the Church but have also given clear indications of their unholy motive for doing so. It is abundantly clear that you have an agenda which you hold to have a higher value than the truth.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #71 on:** July 29, 2020, 09:03:38 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on July 29, 2020, 03:01:43 AM

With regard to Sede-Privationism, here's the thing: Sede-Privationism says the material Pope remains a Pope-elect only. In such a case, the Bishops designated by him would remain Bishop-designates only.

No, by virtue of the appointment, they can formally exercise jurisidiction provided they have no impediment from doing so.

Also, even in straight sedevacantism, it's demonstrated quite clearly that the bishops continue to exercise jurisdiction even during interregna. Theologians were also cited to the effect that jurisdiction could even derive from Antipopes due to color of title.

You've been refuted on this point several times by the sedevacantists, but you simply ignore their arguments and keep re-stating yours.

You're perfectly free to disagree with the thesis that there can be jurisdiction in the Church during an interregnum or that color of title suffices for the transmission of jurisdiction from Christ. Jurisdiction in the Church comes from Christ, and the Pope is a conduit for it, and there's nothing that rules out that even a purely material pope could continue serving as a conduit for jurisdiction even when he cannot himself formally exercise it. Again, disagree with this, but for you to continue to assert that it's heretical is completely unwarranted.

You are not intellectually honest on this issue.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #72 on:** July 29, 2020, 09:09:29 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on July 29, 2020, 08:40:46 AM

We've gone over this several times before and you refuse to even recognize any of the arguments against your position. You are not sincerely seeking the truth. You are just pushing an agenda.

Correct. He ignores counter-arguments, does not rebut them, but merely keeps re-asserting and restating his own position.

He's been caught in many contradictions.

So, for instance, he claims allegiance to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. But at the same time, he's asserted that the legitimacy of the V2 popes is dogmatic fact. To deny or publicly doubt a dogmatic fact is in fact heresy, so since +Lefebvre and +Tissier and others in the SSPX have publicly doubted the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants, they would be heretics if his assertion is true that their status is dogmatically certain. But he refuses to come to terms with these contradictory positions.

When you hold two contradictory positions at the same time, that's clear evidence of bad will.

Stubborn · « **Reply #73 on:** July 29, 2020, 11:04:55 AM »

Quote from: LeDeg on July 28, 2020, 07:46:50 PM

An interesting article by Msgr. Fenton.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

From the link:

The article was mostly fine until Fr. Fenton gets to Fr. Fenton's own, original idea that people have wrongly come to believe is a teaching of the Church, this is the point where it gets twisted into error...

"In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth".

No, God has never "given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense etc......" If however, what he says here is in fact the truth and a true teaching of the Church, which it's not, but if it were, then all trads are wrong and the sedes are more wrong because although we all condemn the NO, the sedes go further and deny that popes are popes.

What the Church teaches in this matter and also what reality since V2 has proven, is that this paragraph is completely and totally wrong, a falsehood, an outright lie when taught by a learned theologian who is expected to know better. But rather than recognize the falsity of this idea based on what the Church actually teaches, the sedes take this false idea of Fr. Fenton as if it is dogma itself, so when they see the pope preaching heresy, they say; "because he does what popes cannot do, on that account he cannot be the pope".

In one paragraph Fr. Fenton obliterates the dogma of papal infallibility as defined at V1, which defined in apodictic terms that the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. If popes have any other "kind of infallibility", no mention was made at V1 - where, btw, infallibly defining papal infallibility was the very purpose of the Council. Did they forget about another kind or simply neglect to define this other kind of infallibility?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #74 on:** July 29, 2020, 01:49:53 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on July 29, 2020, 11:04:55 AM

No, God has never "given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense etc......"

Yes, God has, and this principle derives from the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium.

Author Topic: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever? (Read 2326 times)

songbird

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Stanley N

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

LeDeg

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

LeDeg

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Struthio

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Struthio

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Stanley N

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Nishant Xavier

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Stubborn

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Stubborn

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Clemens Maria

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Ladislaus

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Ladislaus

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Stubborn

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?

Ladislaus

Re: Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?