@ServusInutilisDomini

Please take some time to read articles # 1-9 to see why Totalism is a theological impossibility as applied to the post Vatican II situation and why the Thesis is the best explanation available. The articles thoroughly refute some of the arguments presented in the materials you shared above. I highly recommend article #9 in particular to see why Totalism is untenable per se.

I've spent quite a bit of time presenting my objections in a succinct and readable format. 

I don't have the time or the will to read 32 pages of an article that talks about a "heretical Pope", which I didn't ever bring up. All of my points were the elections were invalid.

I'd appreciate a short explanation at least for the facts which indicate the election was invalid. I'll gladly read a page or two, or even ten if it addresses the issues I brought up.

A most unfortunate straw man which is the result of polemics rather than an interest in intellectual pursuit of truth.

No different than if I were to caricature the Totalist position as:
”Laymen and doubtfully ordained prelates choosing to Pope sift and depose Popes to elect their own, such as David Bawden in rural Kansas by relatives or Clemente Dominguez by hallucinogenic apparitions, using misapplied and misinterpreted canonical arguments and theological pontifications which have resulted in innumerable sects and schisms.”

I think we can both agree that such lampooning of positions should be avoided.

Which part of 2V's statement misrepresented your belief?

a) the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church

b) the Vatican II sect will give us Catholics the next Pope


And now I had a funny thought... You reject Bawden's election because a bunch of laymen elected him but you would gladly accept a bunch of heretical laymen electing a non-Catholic.

Honestly, conclavism is more convincing to me than the Thesis. Say all the CMRI or SSPX priests and Bishops elected a "Pope" tomorrow, that conclave would have more Catholics and bishops than Francis or any future anti-Pope will have.

What a joke.

Instead of reading thousands of pages of theological distinctions hoping there's no hidden assumption or faulty logic, step aside for a moment and think from the common sense aspect.


Edit: To clarify for new members, I'm not a conclavist.

I heard a story that Bp. des Lauriers left behind a docuмent saying he retracted his belief in the thesis towards the end of his life. Can we add that to the encyclopedia?

Is there proof of this somewhere?  It certainly would be important info to have, no?

Which part of 2V's statement misrepresented your belief?

a) the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church

b) the Vatican II sect will give us Catholics the next Pope


And now I had a funny thought... You reject Bawden's election because a bunch of laymen elected him but you would gladly accept a bunch of heretical laymen electing a non-Catholic.

Honestly, conclavism is more convincing to me than the Thesis. Say all the CMRI or SSPX priests and Bishops elected a "Pope" tomorrow, that conclave would have more Catholics and bishops than Francis or any future anti-Pope will have.

What a joke.

Instead of reading thousands of pages of theological distinctions hoping there's no hidden assumption or faulty logic, step aside for a moment and think from the common sense aspect.


Edit: To clarify for new members, I'm not a conclavist.

1. Form and matter: matter is that out of which a thing is made, like marble in the case of a statue; form, on the other hand, is what makes a thing to be what it is. Positions of authority in the Church are material and formal; human and divine.

2. The Vatican II “sect’s” prelates are materially valid elects. 

3. The obex or barrier to their formal authority is a pernicious intention to impose a non-Catholic religion.

4. They are not formal authority as such until the obex is removed and externally manifested.

5. New elections cannot be conducted until the old are juridically abrogated by competent Church authority with legitimate jurisdiction.

Ladislaus, could you explain why you believe in the Thesis and why you accept the election of heretics as valid?

So far you've managed to sell me FE, EENS, and much more so let's see if you can do the same here.

I sincerely doubt it :D

Thanks for your input.

I think these issues are important enough to be deserving of considering reading a few short articles considering that you seem to have rather strong viewpoints about the Thesis and are rather certain about your position. I’m sure you would agree that it’s worth the time for understanding the perspectives of those you consider to be dividing the Sedevacantist community, no?

The two issues regarding election which you posed are of little use when it comes to assessing the validity of John XXIII and Paul VI. The canon you cited is of juridical significance which Pius XII abolished.

The “divine law” aspect of a heretic being unable to hold office in relation to cuм Ex Apostolatus is a weak point of contention as most theologians agree that such a one would have to be notoriously heretical (universally known; not occult) and juridically judged to be a manifest heretic. Neither of which is the case for John XXIII or Paul VI.

Lastly, and deficiencies in election, such as what you brought up regarding outside interference, is remedied by the universal peaceful acceptance of both John XXIII and Paul VI by the Church. To deny this would be to deny the election of Martin V and the Council of Constance.

What I'm hearing is that all the classic common sense sedevacantist arguments that everyone uses hold no water just like RnR's say.

I'll read some of the material later.

Please answer: a) or b)

Otherwise retract that 2Vermont made a strawman.

The bolded parts need to be proven. (LOL)

(A) is inaccurate. The Conciliar “Church” is materially the Roman Catholic Church.

The bolded parts of my statement are proven via the articles which I posted. We can speak of their contents once you have read them if you wish.

I won't address the absurd list you made, just quickly respond to the bolded part.

What a group of non-Catholics does and if they pretend to hold a council or dance around a fire it doesn't matter at all.

Sedevacantism maintains that an invalid Pope hasn't confirmed V2 and therefore it's not part of the magisterium.

For you to insinuate that sedevacantists maintain the Church has defected on the basis that Vatican II falsified it is absurd.

Oh, is there anything outside of my list which is possible for the Totalist position? If so, please share. I am genuinely curious.

I’m afraid you misunderstood me. Totalism rejects Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Church as you correctly pointed out.

The issue with that is it has been 60 years since the event which led to a situation in which Totalists believe the Church lost Her head along with Her hierarchy and all that remains are those who hold to the true Faith. What’s the problem with this you might ask?

Let’s ask Pope Pius IX: (Etsi Multa condemning those who rejected Vatican I; the same condemned “principles” are applicable to the Totalists):

Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”

Diffused among all people, the Church was built by Christ the Son of the living God upon the rock, against which the gates of Hell will not prevail, and with which He Himself, to Whom all power in heaven and on earth is given, said He would be with until the consummation of the world. “The Church cries to her Spouse: Why do certain men withdrawing from me murmur against me? Why do these lost men claim that I have perished? Announce to me the length of my days, how long I will be in this world? Tell me on account of those who say: it was and is no longer; on account of those who say: the scriptures have been fulfilled, all nations have believed, but the Church has apostatized and perished from all nations. And He announced and the voice was not vain. What did He announce? ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Moved by your voices and your false opinions, it asked of God that He announce to it the length of its days and it found that God said ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Here you will say: He spoke about us; we are as we will be until the end of the world. Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world. Let heretics perish as they are, and let them find that they become what they are not.”