http://dailycatholic.org/issue/05Oct/oct8mas.htm

 Legitimate Reasons Why There Are Doubts About the Conciliar Popes

Both sides have points, but it is important to realize that both sides want the best for Holy Mother Church because they love her and want to do God's will. So why are we fighting amongst ourselves?  

"There are two different Church’s now. The new order Church that Ratzinger is the head of and the Catholic Church which we are members of with the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI. The SSPX do not deny that there are two different Church’s – one Catholic and one not and that Ratzinger is the head of the Church that is not Catholic. They say it over and over again but they do not follow this to its logical conclusion – Ratzinger is the head of a Church that is not Catholic THEREFORE Ratzinger is not a Catholic Pope."

     I pray for “Our Holy Father the Pope” everyday at Mass and during the Rosary – I know these prayers are not wasted whether it is Ratzinger that benefits from them or not.

    Sedevacantism is a tough topic to bring up because it scandalizes people.

    Bishop Lefebvre had his doubts regarding the conciliar papacy – this is obvious to those that read him. He had to ultimately come out one way or another on this issue and he took the path that would scandalize the least and would leave him some pull with the Vatican institution.

    Those who doubt the post-conciliar “popes” as being true pope do so because of their LOVE for the Roman Catholic Magisterium and Papacy. They do not like seeing it be mocked as it is when the successor of Peter invents a new “mass”, new doctrine’s and new disciplines and engages in heretical acts.

    I do not believe Jesus founded a mere figurehead that could be disregarded and disobeyed whenever His true followers see fit.

    The pope is supposed to be a unifying head when it comes to sanctity (worship), ruling (discipline) and faith (doctrine) - the post-conciliar heads have been the exact opposite. This (the anti-Christ in Rome and the Great Apostasy) has been predicted in Scripture and by our Lady at La Salette and Fatima.

    There is a time at the end when things will happen that have never happened before in Rome and with the Perpetual Sacrifice. Look at the docuмents that have come out from Rome since 1960 and compare them with the docuмents that came out before and we are all aware of what happened to the Perpetual Sacrifice since 1960 when the 3rd Secret was to be revealed because - to paraphrase our Lady - the warnings in that secret would be clearer by that time.

    If the conciliar heads are true popes then God bless them, I hope they do not go to Hell. But if that is the case then it would be hard to figure out what they COULD do to abrogate their authority. I mean what WOULD it take?

    Like I say – I pray for the “Holy Father” every day and I know my prayers are never wasted either way.

    Admittedly the burden of proof is on the sede vacantists because Ratzinger does hold the office of Peter – he fills that vacancy – the chair is not vacant in the strict sense – it is just not filled by a pope in my opinion. But does Ratzinger have the authority of a Catholic pope? Is not part of the requirement for being a pope to be Catholic? Even if they are true popes they have caused great and needless scandal and have made a mockery of Christ and the papacy that He established.

    Some of the better Catholics I know, one of which has written for Latin Mass Magazine and Seattle Catholic have no opinion on the issue of Sedevacantism. They just don’t know – they are not even sure what to do when trying to gain the indulgence for pray for the intentions of our Holy Father. They are not sure if he is the Holy Father and if he is they are not sure if they should pray for his intentions. They have the humility to admit they don’t know. They are well-read and have seen the arguments for and against. It is a learned and humble position to take. It is a very Catholic position to take in these times. This should not be held against someone, on either side of the issue, during THESE particular times.

    The issue at hand is not what one's opinion is during this time of great crisis/ apostasy/ heresy/ scandal but that we be the best Catholics that we can possibly be regarding the True Mass, the True Catholic discipline that does not allow heretics to receive Communion, and the True Catholic Doctrine that believes the Church Christ found IS the Roman Catholic Church rather than merely “subsisting” in it; that believes that all religions are NOT more or less good; that believe countries have the right to have Catholic laws; that believes that procreation is the PRIMARY end of marriage that does not believe that the husband and the wife are to engage in mutual submission.

    Catholics that are fully loyal to Christ through His Magisterium and their UNCHANGING doctrine up to Vatican II (and I guess whatever does not contradict that de fide doctrine afterwards – that is for the Novus Ordinarians to figure out) are true Catholics regardless of the stance they take on sedevacantism in this particular instance under these particular circuмstances.

    I’m loyal to the magisterium and all true Catholic popes. If Ratzinger is a true Catholic pope, then I am loyal to him.

    I just believe I have a right to doubt how Catholic he is. You do not have to be a pope to be Catholic but you have to be Catholic in order to be a pope. I have not heard otherwise to date and will be the first to admit that I am wrong if I do hear otherwise from a reliable source (pre-conciliar, saint, doctor, pope).

    There are two different Church’s now. The new order Church that Ratzinger is the head of and the Catholic Church which we are members of with the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI. The SSPX do not deny that there are two different Church’s – one Catholic and one not and that Ratzinger is the head of the Church that is not Catholic. They say it over and over again but they do not follow this to its logical conclusion – Ratzinger is the head of a Church that is not Catholic THEREFORE Ratzinger is not a Catholic Pope.

    Can we not admit to the mere possibility of this fact? Do we have to call this possibility “patently absurd” “dangerous” or “fringe”? I believe denying this possibility is patently absurd in a fringy, dangerous sort of way.

    I know my opinion is just that – an opinion, seemingly substantiated, in my view by previous saints, doctors and popes but still an opinion of yet another arm-chair theologian like our esteemed Chris Ferrara of the "patently absurd" fame and contrary to Father Anthony Cekeda who is thoroughly well-studied in this matter and in all things Catholic, having read and understood numerous Catholic docuмents in their original language.

    I just ask for the respect from those I give that respect to. I just ask true Catholics to understand why one might doubt the current Vatican leader’s papacy. I just ask that true Catholics understand that it is not the papacy I doubt in any way just the people that have claimed the office since the council.

    I believe when the pope authorized the docuмent that says the Church of Christ merely subsists in the Catholic Church that he at the very least abrogated at least part of his authority. I suppose at best his authority extended to those in the Vatican Institution - the new catholic church as defined by Lumen Gentium - but not the One, True Church as defined by Christ and all the true Popes for 1900 years. I credit Griff Ruby for enlightening me on this subject and I ask: Can we not get the Fatima Crusader, the Remnant and Catholic Family News to sort out this issue a little more thoroughly and charitably?

    According to the new weak “popes” the Church of Christ also subsists outside the (Vatican institution, new lumen gentium catholic Church). It subsists in the SSPX, the SSPV, the CMRI and to varying degrees the indults and NO’s who are true Catholics at heart but are misled by the leadership – the “popes” as it were.

    That is all I ask. Not that you agree with me. Just acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons why some would doubt the post-conciliar heads of the Vatican institution as being legitimate CATHOLIC popes.

    There are valid reasons why people think this way, we are not just pulling a rabbit out of a hat. And if the popes did abrogate at least part of their authority starting in 1964 when Paul VI approved Lumen Gentium it would explain A LOT regarding all the things that have happened since.

    You must remember that we were not talking de fide doctrine here – I believe in the magisterium as much as you. We are talking opinion. When the Shepherd is struck the sheep are scattered. During a time of great crisis there will be disagreements of opinion as to why we find ourselves in the state we are in. This does not make the sede vacantists more Catholic than the non-sedevacantist or vice versa.

    I hope you can see that. I hope you do not let emotion get in the way of logic. And most of all I hope you understand that I merely give my OPINION that I doubt that the post conciliar heads of the Vatican institution are true popes.

    The truth is more important to me than opinion. If the truth proves me wrong I cannot wait until I am proven wrong.

    Do you understand my dear friends?

    I pray to God you do.

    Love in Christ and His Mother,

 Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
LoT

"Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to but a handful, they are THE TRUE CHURCH"


St. Athanasius, AD 373