I joined a discussion forum connected with an R&R priest. You know, a priest who leads the rosary before Mass and prays for "the conversion of Pope Leo XIV".

It looks like the forum is handled by a designated lay helper, which is not unusual. Priests are busy.

The forum has a section for "Sedevacantism" and is filled with about 20 posts over a few years. No discussions, just posts that are supposed to make sedevacantism look wrong.

One of the posts was a quote from St. Francis de Sales (Doctor the Church) used to make sedevacantism look wrong. The poster decided to emphasize and highlight various sections of of the quote with bold, or underline, or italics.

However, there was a portion of the quote that was NOT emphasized. Overlooked for some reason. I found it to be THE most significant. So for my first post I focused on it, and explained what it meant and what it implied.

I will post what I wrote later, but I want to mention that shortly after I posted, I had my rights to post suspended, and not only did I have my message delete, but the post by the forum operator that contained the Saint's quote was also deleted!

You were banned for posting that? No wonder The Catacombs has ~1 active user 

Here is an exact copy of what I posted...



I would like to point out something important about this.

This work of St. Francis de Sales is definitive on this matter. Seven years after the dogma of "papal infallibility" was defined in 1870 (at the General Council), in 1877 the same pope, Pius IX, raised this Saint to a "Doctor of the Church". On that occasion the pope called this work, "a complete demonstration of the Catholic religion". After all, when the Saint wrote it, he was writing it to Protestants about the Catholic Church.

Another interesting thing is that the General Council of the Vatican in 1870 took care to condemn what we now refer to as "Gallicanism" or "Conciliarism". Basically saying that nobody can judge a pope. In light of this, we know that this quote promotes no such error. Here is the excerpt:

"when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: let another take his bishopric"

This means that the prelates of the Church who gather to take care of the matter, would be gathering having already personally (even lying in bed one night) concluded that the man is no longer the pope, otherwise the gathering against a believed-to-be-pope would be heretical and a mortal sin.

And so it is across the board with Catholic publications since then. An example is "A Catholic Dictionary", going through several editions in the 1900's saying:

"A pope can only be deposed for heresy, expressed or implied, and then only by a general council. It is not strictly deposition, but a declaration of fact, since by his heresy he has already ceased to be head of the Church... "
                  - A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Pope, Deposition of a

"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still  claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope."
                  - A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition

I cannot find the quotes in the 1898 version.

Trad priests, bishops and lay people are the "nobody" that V1 was talking about in the first paragraph above.

Nobody, means nobody. Because it is NOT judging "a pope", it is judging "a man" is not really a pope. It's the moral (not juridical) judgment in the first part of the quote I presented from the Saint. The latter part of the quote is about declaring the See vacant, but those declaring it already know he isn't the pope and are merely making a declaration of fact in a juridical manner. Until that declaration, the in-between state is referred to in canon law as "sede impedita".

First you posted:

"This work of St. Francis de Sales is definitive on this matter...."
"when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church,and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See"

But now you the saint is not actually meaning what he said because it's only "the moral, (not juridical) judgement in the first part of the quote."

We will wait for the Church to declare the Seat Vacant as St. Francis said - which, if it ever even happens, could well be a long, long time after their deaths.

You just overlooked the fact the the individual prelates, even one day in their pajamas in bed, could morally conclude the man is not really a pope. It takes simply reason enlightened by faith to make that conclusion. No other qualification or act of jurisdiction.

The conclusion is just that, and it could be wrong, what you quoted St. Francis as saying is, as you said, definitive. It actually is up to the Church to decide the matter, which is the qualification and act of authority needed.

Our knowledge of the conciliar popes' heresies in no way qualifies us or gives us the authority to declare him deprived of his office or never to have been elected. Look to Richard Ibranyi to exemplify why in this matter supposed conclusions are at best erroneous and why this is strictly the Church's domain... No popes or cardinals since 1130.

The conclusion won't be wrong. It's what the quote the Saint and Doctor is necessarily saying.

 It takes simply reason enlightened by faith to make that conclusion. 

You are correct.  First and foremost, it is a judgment in the moral order, which can be made by the simple layman.

Archbishop Lefebvre believed the same about the capability of us all to discern this.

In 1986 he said in an address to seminarians, where he even mentioned "sedevacantists" (published twice in The Angelus):

"it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope"

Since his death, the R&R generally try to keep this from the lay people they serve.

Of course it is possible, then again, we might not be obliged to believe it. There's always that possibility (which is usually not considered), although once one convinces themself the conclusion is actually a Catholic truth, then it becomes self obligatory. Once that happens, there's usually (not always) no possibility of ever turning back. Such is the nature of sedeism.

The conclusion won't be wrong. It's what the quote the Saint and Doctor is necessarily saying.

Whether the conclusion is right or wrong is in reality altogether irrelevant, the quote from saint Francis that you posted was certainly right, it is up to the Church and nobody else.

In the end, both sede and R&R do not follow the abominations of conciliar popes, the dividing difference between them is that R&R have no reason to add the deciding of the popes' status into their faith. It is because this is not a part of R&R's faith that  causes the sedes to separate themselves from R&R.