CathInfo.com

Quote from: Ladislaus

This despite the fact that I cited a theologian writing at the time of Pius XII who said that considering (making the "determination") Pius XII to be illegitimate would constitute HERESY.

I would still be interested in knowing who was questioning the validity of Pope Pius XII during his reign, who this cardinal was (you only provided who you "thought" it might have been), and where the condemnation was actually published in the 1950s.

I don't have my original paper, but I'm pretty sure it was Cardinal Zubizaretta.  And he was speaking hypothetically in order to illustrate the topic of "dogmatic fact".  He didn't imply that there was anyone who actually did so.  He used the name Pius XII in his example to make it concrete, and he was writing during the reign of Pius XII.

Some advice though - don't lump all sedevacantists together Ladislaus.  In your experience you may have encountered some "rabid SV's" - but I have not noticed that type of behavior since I've joined CI.

There are a number of such here on CI.  But, yes, you're right, it doesn't apply to all SVs.

Honestly, who does he think he is? An authority higher than Holy Mother the  Church? I am asking a serious question here.

Part of the liberal brainwashing of our times is to think that as an individual Catholic one has the right to judge and depose popes, or is entitled to either "accept" them or "reject" them. This phenomenon has no precedence in the history of the Catholic Church.  

Fr. Cekada, as all liberals do, is attributing to himself a power that just does not belong to him. Surely, to avoid such arrogance, most sedes, as himself, are content to say that the Pope automatically ceases to be Pope "on his very own" due to heresy and therefore that the Holy See is vacant, a logic conclusion it seems, until one looks further into it. Many words are wasted in trying to defend what is indefensible, just to arrive to such an over-simplistic conclusion: that a heretic cannot be pope. That is as a far as layman could safely go. We, as Catholics in the pew, do not have the right to proceed and conclude that "therefore, the seat is vacant" and then reject a validly elected Pope, because we would be violating already defined dogma:

Dogmatic papal bull Unam Sanctam clearly teaches that "The spiritual man judges all things and he himself is judged by no man" (1 Cor 2:15), is applicable to the Roman Pontiff. When Pope Boniface VIII concludes that no one can "judge" the Pope he is not saying that the Pope is extent from human criticism or even active resistance but he is referring to the actual juridical act of deposing him, as sedevacantists play they can do in their minds all the time.

The problem does not reside on whether or not the See is vacant as sedes pretend, as if the whole Catholic religion depended on being a "true Pope" or not. The crisis is one of dogma, where the most important of all: the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation is compromised and therefore, no other dogma is safe.