Starting at minute 11:30 through min 24:00/30:00 Fr. Jenkins goes on the offensive against dogmatic sedevacantists.  He seems to defend/prefer a position very much along the lines of sedeprivationism(we can judge a heretical pope/he has lost the power of infallibility/we need not obey/ he needs to be formally deposed).  This should also help to dispel the myth that the material/formal "doubtful pope"/privation thesis(that there can be a pope who  does not possess the power of infallibility) is some new novelty(the Avignon pope crisis is relevant concerning it/he cites two authorities from around the time of Pius X that in practice present the thesis).  

The entire program is great.  The first 11 minutes discusses trad controversy about the different positions/reactions to the crisis/marriage tribunals.  Minute 30:00 and on talks about the Thuc consecrations.  It focuses mainly on the consecration of de lauriers(there are some useful interesting details that were not in the sacred and profane). The end of the program talks about mount st. michael and schuckhardt.

I highly recommend watching the entire video.

These "what catholics believe" videos were uploaded(there are a lot of them on their channel) onto youtube about 2 months ago.  A big thanks should go out to the sspv for posting them online for all of us!

 

What's interesting is that the theologian cited by Father Jenkins a couple minutes in actually proposes the INVERSE of sedeprivationism, i.e. that objective doubts about the legitimacy of a pope actually deprive him of the ability to formally exercise the papal authority while leaving him materially to be pope.  Very interesting spin on the question.

ladislaus - Forgive me if I am wrong, but I interpret condescension from your posts.  For that reason, I must say, I prefer the term "privationism" over "doubtism"(because it's reference point is "sede").  The indult crowd obviously has a "doubt" about the new mass, and that is legitimate, but they none the less obey, when they should anathematize.  The sspx has doubts, but they accept saints.  The "doubt" should lead us to the conclusion that the pope does not bind us(is not "infallible").  This means that he is not "formally" a pope(he is not normal/he is a heretic).  He has to be something else, yet still pope due to other facts.  This would make him "privately" or "materially" the pope.

So, "doubtism" doesn't quite have the ring or substance that I believe is needed.

Ladislaus - Don't forget that we are on computers, casual tongue in cheek doesn't translate well.  

I suspected that this had something to do with Fr. Sanborn's confusion position(he wants to be privationist yet already a vacantist at the same time) .  He is a real problem.  

Perhaps simple "doubtism" and what that implies works just fine being that we lack authority.  I personally believe that catholics can be found in the indult and the sspx.  They are going to suffer in purgatory, but they none the less can get in.

Mithrandylan - Did you view the part of the video?  The subject is about dogmatic sedevacantism.  In light of that, my post is relevant.

Now, Father Jenkins glosses over the notion that legitimate election + universal acceptance = legitimate papacy.  He read a theological definition, and I think that legitimate election is the KEY, and it's why I believe in the Siri thesis.  I don't agree with Nishant, for instance, who says that universal acceptance can provide a sanatio in radice for an illegitimate election.

We need only look at the example of Anacletus II.  For several years he was almost universally accepted as the Pope; it took a while to figure out that the prior election of Innocent had been legitimate.

From Catholic Encyclopedia, about Anacletus:  "The majority of the cardinals with the Bishop of Porto, the Dean of the Sacred College, at their head, stood at his side. Almost the whole populace of Rome rallied around him. His victory seemed complete, when, shortly after, the Frangipani, abandoning what appeared to be a lost cause, went over to him."

Apparently there are still some modern-day canonists who think that Anacletus had the better claim to the papacy.

When the smoke clears, I fully expect it to be established that John XXIII was the "uncanonically elected pope" who would wreak havoc on the Church.

I went to a sedevacantist chapel on Sunday and the priest was fairly frank about the fact that he did not accept the 1962 rite of mass, or the ordination of priests or bishops after that time.  Basically everything from John XXIII's pontificate onwards was void other than a few strands of Trad ordinations.

While he didn't spell it out he did strongly hint at the idea that if one was going to go along to his chapel one had to be pot-committed to the SV thesis.  He did not want people "chapel hoping" between various Trad masses as in his view this was inconsistent.

It's rational and I completely see why SVism has to lead to dogmatic SVism since to not ultimately take this position is to undermine one's own foundations.

But the problem is that I would have to sell my children on the idea that the only "Catholic" Church we could attend in a 200 mile radius was in someone's back garden in a building not really large enough to house my family let alone the other two parishoners.  It also makes you competely dependent on one priest which in my 35 year experience is NEVER a good thing.

I can't see my children maintaining their faith when faced with a once superlative religion that helped build civilization but has fallen to the level of, let's call a spade a spade here, "defection".  I mean, really, I think it is nuts, so why wouldn't they?

It's like trying to be convinced that Pharaoh Akhenaten was right all along and Sun worship is actually the true religion albeit that it had a bad patch for 4000 years while the false religions suppressed it.  Rational, since we rely on the Sun for life but utterly lacking in credibility or consistency at the same time.

So I quit.   I had tried it out for a few weeks but not taken the family along until I could see what it was all about.  I politely told him that while I could see exactly why he would take that position, in his current situation (SVism is basically on it's last legs in Britain), he would have to have a stigmata and be working frequent miracles for me to accept those terms and conditions.  I'm only going to submit to someone with Messiah-like qualities and he does not have any.

After all, Jesus did work frequent miracles.  Without those humans would not have believed His claims.

So you reject the New Religion due to the Siri thesis. That's pretty flimsy isn't it?

No, it's based on many different data points, all of which rely ultimately upon private judgment ... as is your conclusion about this being a "New Religion".  Avoid the temptation to oversimplify and to give more credit to your private judgment than it merits.