The crazy words and deeds of Pope Francis are presently driving many believing Catholics towards sedevacantism, which is dangerous. The belief that the Conciliar Popes have not been and are not Popes may begin as an opinion, but all too often one observes that the opinion turns into a dogma and then into a mental steel trap. I think the minds of many sedevacantists shut down because the unprecedented crisis of Vatican II has caused their Catholic minds and hearts an agony which found in sedevacantism a simple solution, and they have no wish to re-open the agony by re-opening the question. So they positively crusade for others to share their simple solution, and in so doing many of them – not all -- end up displaying an arrogance and a bitterness which are no signs or fruits of a true Catholic.

Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe. Let us return to one of their most important arguments, which is from Papal infallibility: Popes are infallible. But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal. Therefore they are not Popes.

To this one may object that a Pope is certainly infallible only when he engages the four conditions of the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium by teaching 1 as Pope, 2 on Faith or morals, 3 definitively, 4 so as to bind all Catholics. Whereupon sedevacantists and liberals alike reply that it is Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is also infallible, so – and here is the weak point in their argument – whenever the Pope teaches solemnly even outside of his Extraordinary Magisterium, he must also be infallible. Now their liberal Conciliar teaching is solemn. Therefore we must become either liberals or sedevacantists, depending of course on who is wielding the same argument.

But the hallmark of teaching which belongs to the Church’s Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not the solemnity with which the Pope teaches outside of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but whether what he is teaching corresponds, or not, to what Our Lord, his Apostles and virtually all their successors, the bishops of the Universal Church, have taught in all times and in all places, in other words whether it corresponds to Tradition. Now Conciliar teaching (e.g. religious liberty and ecuмenism) is in rupture with Tradition. Therefore Catholics today are not in fact bound to become liberals or sedevacantists.

However, both liberals and sedevacantists cling to their misunderstanding of Papal infallibility for reasons that are not without interest, but that is another story. In any case they do not give up easily, so they come back with another objection which deserves to be answered. Both of them will say that to argue that Tradition is the hallmark of the Ordinary Magisterium is to set up a vicious circle. For if the Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, exists to tell what is Church doctrine, as it does, then how can the Traditional doctrine at the same time tell what is the Magisterium ? Either the teacher authorises what is taught, or what is taught authorises the teacher, but they cannot both at the same time authorise each other. So to argue that Tradition which is taught authorises the Ordinary Magisterium which is teaching, is wrong, and so the Pope is infallible not only in his Extraordinary teaching, and so we must become either liberals or sedevacantists, they conclude.

Why there is no vicious circle must wait until next week. It is as interesting as why both sedevacantists and liberals fall into the same error on infallibility.

Kyrie eleison.

If four conditions are not all in play. The Popes can err in what they teach or say.

I'm afraid that Bishop Williamson's understanding of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is deeply flawed.  I'll get back to it this afternoon.

The very nature of a doubt is that it must be resolved.  Sede-doubtism is necessarily a transitional position while one works to resolve doubts.  Which is why I do not really think of it as a position proper.  

It's the best position for someone who doesn't have moral certainty (yet) on the issue.

It's taken His Excellency many years to come around to this, the correct position, regarding the crisis.  Welcome aboard, Your Excellency.

Quote from: Eleison Comments

Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe.

Without the certainty of faith in their legitimacy, they are not Popes for all intents and purposes papa dubius nullus papa and therefore can be resisted without schism.  Recall that the legitimacy of a Pope must be known with certainty, the certainty of faith; it's in the category of dogmatic fact.

Bergolio is working miracles.

I personally think that the V2 Popes have been infiltrators and conscious agents of destruction.  Obviously that's just gut feel and not based on any hard evidence.  As such, their handlers have been playing classic Hegelian dialectic.

Benedict XVI was installed so that he could play good cop towards Traditional Catholics.  He spoke just enough Traditional Catholic doctrine and used enough Latin and incense to endear him to the Traditionalists.  Many (like Father Kramer) now look upon him in retrospect as a great defender of orthodoxy, failing to see that the man behind the curtain is an unconverted modernist.  IMO Ratzinger did this precisely in order to bait and lure in what remained of Traditional Catholicism, with the end goal of eventually neutralizing it.

I also personally believe that Bishop Fellay is an infiltrator and conscious agent of destruction who was working methodically with Ratzinger to pull off the neutralization.  If I'm having sudden qualms of conscience about my lack of submission to Rome, I resign immediately from the SSPX and just submit to Rome.  Instead he is on this crusade to drag the entire SSPX kicking and screaming back to Rome.  Why?  He's doing it at the cost of expelling people left and right and destroying the SSPX.  Really the only explanation is that the destruction of the SSPX is precisely what's intended.

Unfortunately for them, that's where Bishop Williamson came in.  I am actually guessing that Bishops Williamson deliberately gave the interview when he did in order to intentionally sabotage their game plan.  Bishop Williamson's interview is THE ONLY REASON that SSPX couldn't be absorbed and neutralized.  Were it not for Bishop Williamson, the SSPX would have been absorbed already.  He single-handedly derailed the plan.

When Benedict failed in his mission to absorb the SSPX by posing as a Traditionalist at heart, he was told by his handlers to step down, since he longer had any usefulness to them.  With the good cop out of the way, they roll out Bergoglio.  They intend to leave him in there just long enough to alienate pretty much anyone who has any sense of Catholicism left.  Once people have been sufficiently conditioned by Bergoglio, they'll install another pseudo-conservative whom everyone will hail as a champion of orthodoxy, by contrast with Bergoglio.  They will then try to use this next one to absorb and neutralize Tradition.

That's how Hegelian dialectic works.  By going left and right, they gradually shift people's perception of the center.  It's like with gas prices.  They start it at $3.25, then shoot it up to $4.00.  People complain and moan.  Then they come back down to $3.69 and people think that's great, having completely forgotten that they started off at $3.25.  This psychological conditioning is taking place before us right now.  People already miss Benedict XVI and consider him to be some kind of new St. Pius X due to the contrast with Francis.  Father Paul Kramer has ALREADY fallen for this with his sedebenedictism.

After a few years of being tortured by Francis, they'll roll out a new Ratzinger-like figure whom everyone will hail as a new Athanasius and who will be assigned with completing the task of absorbing what remains of Traditional Catholicism.  Perhaps they'll roll out Ratzinger himself ... again.  And I don't think it'll be long, since Bergoglio is far ahead of schedule in irritating Traditional and Conservative Catholics.