I just think a couple of answers on here are nothing but cope. Father Cekada didn't address, but brushed aside, the core arguments by simply declaring that no one believes that Bergoglio, Ratzinger, Wojtyla "and the rest" were never popes to begin with and that "no sedevacantist" still believes they fell from the papacy.
At least in terms of Montini, he has to actually address the argument, and the bulk of the V2 damage and the NOM and the vitiation of the Sacraments took place under Montini's "watch". So either he has to present evidence that Montini was a manifest heretic before his "election" or address the S&S arguments.
In any case, establishing the time and location of "manifest heresy" is a sticky situation. I don't really go there or bother much with the "5 Opinions" because it's an unwinnable argument. You could just say, like +?Schneider did, that he holds to the one opinion where a heretic pope can never lose his office, and since the Church hasn't ruled on the matter, you're not going to convince them.
What has to be the focus is simply that we know these guys couldn't have been popes because legitimate Popes are protected by the Holy Ghost form wrecking the Magisterium and the Mass to the extent that these clowns did, a proposition fully backed by Archbishop Lefebvre. Most R&R refuse to look at this, but +Lefebvre never supported the MAJOR of the current version of their position, namely, that it's possible for a legitimate pope to perpetrate such destruction. Where +Lefebvre stopped short was in coming up with the explanation for HOW this happened. Was it manifest heresy, either before or during their "term of office"? Was it that their elections were invalid, perhaps due to the Siri thesis? Was it because Montini was not acting freely but was blackmailed and thereby forced to sign the docuŠ¼ents (perhaps due to the dirt they had on him, the allegations of sodomy)? Was Montini replaced by a double? Even though the last one sounds preposterous on the surface, we can't rule it out with the certainty of faith, which suffices to make the SV conclusion not provable with the certainty of faith. Some day the explanation will become manifest, but the crucial thing is that we simply cannot accept the proposition that legitimate papal authority freely exercised would go so un-protected by the Holy Ghost as to allow it to wreck the Church. That is contrary to the faith. And that needs to be our focus, not the "5 Opinions" or attempting to prove "manifest heresy" and also the time/place/circuŠ¼stances of "manifest heresy".
Topic: Challenge for SVs (Read 10567 times)