Spouse of Jesus, God would allow a wicked man to be Pope.  That is why Christ says "The Pharisees sit in the Temple of God, do what they say, but not what they do."  At that time, the Pharisees were hypocrites who taught people the law of Moses, but contradicted it in their own lives.  

The same goes for Catholics.  If a Pope is a womanizing drunkard, that is his problem -- as long as he doesn't tell US to be womanizing drunkards, he is still Pope.  His personal sins don't matter as far as we're concerned ( though they do matter as far as his immortal soul is concerned ).  

Read about the Donatists.  They rebelled against sinful bishops, and kept rebelling, they wouldn't go back into the Catholic Church even after the bishops apologized.  That would be like if people left Vatican II today because of the child molestation.  But even that would be wrong.

Sedevacantists are not rebelling against sinful bishops.  We are not rebelling at all, because these men are not bishops at all!  

You see, what God would not allow is a Pope ( bishop of Rome ) who teaches heresy.  Because as CM points out, a Pope who teaches heresy cannot even be a member of the Catholic Church.  

You have to see the difference between a WICKED MAN and an ANTI-CHRIST.  

A wicked man harms only himself and his immediate circle with his actions.  An anti-Christ tries to harm everyone else, to deceive the world, to lead it away from God.  

A wicked man is a sinner; an Anti-Christ is  a false prophet and a false shepherd.  It is hard to understand why people like this exist.  It is a mystery.

God allows Anti-Christs to exist, but they still cannot be Pope.  That would contradict the very nature of the Catholic Church which cannot teach error about fundamental dogma.  The Popes starting with John XXIII have literally tried to remake God into an abomination, an idol.  

See what I mean? There are all kinds of Sedes.

Some even think that we haven't had a Pope since St. Pius X who died in 1914!

That's a LONG time for the Church to be in eclipse. I think the world would have ended a few decades ago if that were true.

See, I think some people want the pope to be an actual saint -- anything less, and "he's not pope!". I think they need to read their Church History.

These people also end up giving up the Faith more often than not -- they start out extremely to the right, apparently willing to do anything -- denounce family, have no friends, not attend Mass on Sunday, etc. -- but after many years, they flip completely over to the "left" and become an immoral worldling.

This happens after years of bitterness, because they tend to "give up" and go off the deep end in one way or another.

I'm not saying this applies to all Sedevacantists, but it is certainly a danger that I've seen happen to Sedes on quite a few occasions. And the more "radical" the Sede, the greater chance it will happen.

Matthew

Catholic Martyr, I am going to engage you now against all better instincts.  

You ask why I can't see that all Popes since Benedict XV after Anti-Popes.  Why can't YOU see that baptism of desire and communion in one species are the same -- provided for by the very words of Christ Himself, and brought out and defined by the Council of Trent.

Christ, who is All-Knowing, knew that one day the Church would need to defend itself against Protestants by limiting communion to one species.  But when he first speaks about communion, he mentions explicitly both species:  "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."

Those who believe that today are following in the footsteps of the condemned Hussites.  Yet Jesus said it.  Why?

Well, let's look at Christ's similar phrase in John about baptism, where two things are required.  "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Water therefore MUST be necessary, right?  Keep reading.  Because in both cases, two verses later, Christ slightly changes his formulas.

Back to communion in one species.  Look at how Christ FOLLOWS UP his original statement, slightly changing the wording:  "This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever."

Now it is all about the bread.  No mention of wine.  This allowed the Council of Trent to defend against the Protestant heretics, and they did so by saying that anyone who says that you must take BOTH the bread and the wine would from then on be anathema.

Now, back to baptism.  Just like He did with communion, He does with baptism:  "The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

Here He leaves out the regeneration through water, just like He left out the wine.  The implication is clear.  The wine IS important.  The baptism of water IS important.  But He can still save you without either, because He is God, with whom all things are possible... Isn't He wonderful?

Jesus used lacunae in His language so that the Church would have a certain mobility against heresies.  Protestants and their modern descendants of the Feenyesque stripe are literal-minded.   You even talk like a Protestant, all severe and harsh, proudly stating when you introduced yourself that you won't say "God bless you" unless people agree with you.  That is a sin against charity and makes you sound like a dour, warmongering Calvinist.  Is it love that draws you to the Church or strife and contention?  Fighting heresies is one thing, but I'm afraid your obsession doesn't qualify.

Protestants THINK they know exactly what the Bible says but they don't really understand the mysterious speech of Jesus and how it provides for all contingencies that will ever arise throughout history, which He knew from beginning to end and in every detail.  You can't just take a phrase out of context and plunk it down as if it is the whole of the Law.  

Jesus left it up to His Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, to redefine dogmas as it became necessary.  Just as the Council of Trent limited communion to the bread, the body of Christ, it also allows for baptism of desire, though this was not taught before.  This is now defined, and if it wasn't then, it certainly was by 1917 ( under the TRUE POPE Benedict XV ), in Canon Law where it is stated that catechumens are to receive Catholic burial.  Not to mention many doctors believed in it, Aquinas and Bellarmine among them.

Thank you for your thoughts.  I will paste it into a text file and carefully take it all in and I will respond when I have time (work and such).

Again, thanks.