Ok, so I see the topic's been moved, where were we? This is going to be quite lengthy again, bear with me.

Spiritus, I believe in EENS exactly as the Church has always held it, holding only that in case of moral or physical impossibility of actual baptism, desire will suffice. As for what Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict believe, the CCC must be considered the official expression of that,

And this affirmation on the matter seems to me quite orthodox,

"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

TKGS, well any position, particularly a well thought out one, I would hope, is based on something, has some basis, doesn't it? I agree that someone who thinks Pope Benedict is not Pope is a sedevacantist, but I do not agree that sedevacantism has no further implications or premises open to critique. I mostly agree in fact with what you said, and perhaps that was not clear, but that was the point of my question. To what you said, I think a person nominally elected Pope is entitled to some privileges including a presumption of innocence as I will show proof of below. Finally, I had and have no objection to discussing anything anywhere.

As for Raoul's points.

I must admit I don't know much about this episode, or about Maximus.

All right. If you like, you can read his biography from the Catholic Encyclopedia here. Briefly, St.Maximus was one of the great Greek Fathers of the Church.

He defended the true Faith, that Christ must be confessed in two natures and two wills, against the Monothelites. It is also not quite like you make it out, that there was some private letter that did no harm. The letter was directly cited to him by the Monothelites as proof of their impious errors. It was in response to this that St.Maximus defended Honorius as regards his person, but on matters of faith, St.Maximus firmly refused to back down, his tongue was cut out, and he was put to death.

St.Athanasius and Pope Liberius also provides a sort of parallel. Because the great Saint never declared the Pope deposed for his weakness while some in the Roman clergy presumptuously did, thus electing Antipope Felix II.

And while I'm familiar with St.Bernard's criteria, which I completely agree with, and with the deplorable confusion in the Catholic world during the "western schism" when St.Vincent Ferrer and St.Catherine were found on opposite sides, these two being among the only other parallels in ecclesiastical history that I can think of that might provide clues to the situation at hand, I submit that neither is applicable in this case.

Why? Two principles.

1. Prudence demands that we don't speculate about antipopes unless there are at least two visible and credible claimaints to the Papal throne.

This is what I take, among other things, Vatican I to establish. Otherwise, "perpetual sucessors" like I said is utterly meaningless. Vatican I not only controverted Protestant Americanists but also the Greek schismatics, who maintained that Rome had "lost" all her canonical prerogatives and excommunicated herself from the universal Church. This was condemned even at the time, by Pope St.Gregory VII and later by the Vatican Council which reaffirmed the divinely instituted prerogatives of the Roman Church's ordinary power over every other Church.

There will be perpetual successors, and this is fulfilled when there are multiple claimaints, with many false, and one true. But it is difficult to see how it is fulfilled in the situation you maintain. Otherwise, if the fact of a three year interregnum makes a 50 year interregnum possible, why doesn't the "fact" of a 50 year interregnum make anything possible, even the schismatic Greek claim?

A lengthy interregnum is a remote possibility, exceedingly unlikely, but I grant it. But it will happen only if, say, Cardinals are unable to convene in conclave due to separation or war or other supervening difficulties of the sort.

2. A single Papal election may always be presumed valid as a matter of the positive law of the Church, as can be proved from the current canon law.

The Doctors themselves are well known, including Alphonsus, Bellarmine, Bonaventure, for saying something to the effect that we may rightly presume that divine Providence will never allow a Pope to fall into heresy, which must include this. But more specifically the well known and providential legislation of Pope Pius XII:

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945

“None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any  excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”

Now, note well, I am not saying, I repeat, I am not saying that a heretic can be Pope. What I am saying is that canon law entitles the elected person to a presumption of innocence regarding personal heresy precisely, I would say, to erase scruples of conscience like the possibility of sedevacantism.

This also answers cuм ex, but I still grant for this reason that erring in point of fact, as I believe sedevacantists do, over a Papal election is a legitimate theological position which does not in and of itself constitute heresy obviously, nor even the sin of schism, as even some pre-Vatican II theologians held. So you say "my prudence is false" and my "logic is based on emotions" but I am merely holding, even on this point, with theologians.

By the way, I personally considered the Siri thesis for a while, since it at first seemed superficially plausible, and matches the criteria I had come to after some thought. But that seemed the least credible of all, with all reasons urged against the Popes following the Council also applying to Cardinal Siri. Finally, I should note that between the FSSP and SSPX positions, which are largely though not completely identical, I choose the former because of certain considerations, urged by you as well, about the Church as such.

Neither agrees with your opinion in any case that the consecration rite or Mass itself is invalid. In practice, the existing abuses and irreverence and sins of scandal have become practically indistinguishable from the form of the rite itself, but the Latin Missal as promulgated, I hold valid because the indefectibility of the Church compels me to, and several credible studies have reached the same conclusion. There were abuses of Indulgences before, and some people overreacted to that, lost the Faith and became heretics 500 years ago, by denying the dogma of Indulgences among other things. I submit sedevacantism likewise is an overreaction, which fails to make proper distinctions.

You also missed the Passion analogy almost completely. As long as that trial endured, Peter was weak. As long as this endures, so will be the Popes. That is part of the trial and I've made my peace with it. Also, Christ's holy and spotless Body in that time itself was buffeted, His blood was poured out, likewise the Church, His mystical body, is under attack, and is bloodied, as it were. The Blood of Christ itself is truly outraged, His body truly profaned in this Hour as it was in that, which would not be true if transubstantiation was not effected even by the most shoddy and irreverent priest. So my analogy is rather more accurate than yours.

Finally, the quotes you asked for,

Pope St.Gregory VII, Dictatus Papae,

That the Roman church was founded by God alone. That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.

Pope St.Agatho, Letter from the Third Council of Constantinople,

For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.

So even in the theoretical case of a heretical Pontiff, Christ will still protect and guide the Roman Church built on Peter against which heresy shall not prevail, as in the one historical parallel that to my mind comes closest, as He prevented Honorius from binding the Church to the heresy he had personally fallen to. This is why the position I laid out after considerable study is I think the most reasonable, historically, dogmatically, canonically, and I would welcome correction on any point.

Quote from: Augustine Baker

Should I be a Sirivacantist, a home aloner, a Feeney Sede or any other Sede brands out there?

It's not about any of that. If the Pope has fallen into heresy and an indivisual realizes it, then he/she is a sede.

As for the positions you listed, the Siri thesis is not credible IMO. Home-alone-ism is sinful. I'm not even going to get into the topic of Feeney-ism, there are enough threads about that already.

“I say to thee that thou art Peter,  upon this rock I build my Church; and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”
 
Do you believe that God promised the office would carry with it the power to act vicariously in the name of God?
 
Do you believe in the Gospel of Luke, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not?

Do you believe that Christ alone has absolute sovereignty over the Church.  That St. Peter had merely a delegated authority from Christ, and it was subject to conditions imposed by Christ?
 
Do you believe that even St. Peter could not change the faith taught by Christ?
 
Do you believe that one True Vicar of Christ can contradict another Vicar of Christ in matters of Faith and Morals?

Do you believe that the Church founded by God, can adapt their teachings to the times of the age we live in?

Do you believe that the Vicar of Christ can be both pope of truth and error?

Depending on how you answer these questions, and WITHOUT judging a pope,  you might be sedevacantist and don’t realize it.

Spiritus, just by way of comparison, here is the Baltimore Catechism on the same subject, of EENS.

Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:

1.(1) Has been validly baptized;

2.(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and

3.(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

I think this wording is more unfortunate than that, though I don't deny there are some difficulties with the CCC as well.

But more importantly, at most such statements are evidence of material error, not formal heresy. This is because it seems to me that pertinacity is extremely difficult to establish in the case of a Pope. I don't deny that any Catholic may admonish someone else, but surely there is a difference between me admonishing my priest and my Bishop doing the same.

I take it you drew that conclusion from the fact that all official antipopes of the Church opposed a true Pope? If so, that makes sense at first glance. But the error in your reasoning here is that the Church never said there must be to multiple claimants to the Papal throne for there to be an antipope.

In part, yes. And what you say is true enough, but it seems to me the historical precedents I mentioned are on the side of this position. One Pope and several antipopes at the same time also seems more in line with Vatican I's statements of "perpetual successors" because there is a successor.

That contradicts what Pope Paul IV said in 1559

All that cuм Ex establishes is that a heretic cannot be Pope, which everyone grants is a tenet of Divine law. But divine law is to be implemented through the positive law of the Church in our times. I'll note that the current Code of Canon Law, according to sedevacantists, is the 1917 one, and all provisions of positive law to the contrary stand abrogated when that took effect.

I agree in part with John Salza's take on the matter,

This means the governing ecclesiastical law – which Sedevacantists
agree applies to the question at hand – presumes the validity of papal elections, until there is a determination by the Church of whether or not Divine Law has been violated. Ecclesiastical law, then, requires this formal determination to be made by the Church after the election.

Canon 2223, par. 4

In general, to declare a penalty latae sententiae is left to the prudence of the superior; but whether at the instance/request of a party who is involved, or because the common good requires it so, a declaratory sentence must be given.  


While, according to Divine Law, formal heresy results in self-expulsion from the Church without the need for a declaratory sentence, ecclesiastical law (can 2223.4) requires a declaratory sentence (sententia declaratoria dari debet) of said heresy if the common good of the Church requires it. Needless to say, it is in the best interests of the Catholic Church to know whether we have a valid Pope. Nothing more important for the Church could possibly be imagined. Hence, a declaratory sentence proclaiming a Cardinal’s pre-election heresy “must be given.”

If such an ecclesiastical declaration were not required, the Church would never know with certainty whether Divine Law has been violated, and this uncertainty would undermine the Church’s very mission and existence. This also means maintaining the Sedevacantist position (that a given papal election is invalid) in the absence of a declaratory sentence attacks the best interests of the Church.

My point is that many are sedevacantist and do not even realize it.  Many who attend SSPX in fact.  Many just don't want to consider it.

Interesting, I've heard that from several people. I suppose there is truth to that...

Just to clarify, home-alone is not sinful if there is no place to go.  I thought you even told us you stayed home on Sunday, forgive me if I have you mixed up with someone else.  Better to stay home than attend a Protestant novus ordo service.

I do stay home on Sunday because I don't have access to a TLM. Of course, the true definition of a "home aloner" is someone who has access to a TLM but refuses to attend because the views of those celebrating the Mass aren't in line with that indivisual. But yes, I agree. Better to stay home than to attend the Bogus Ordo.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m028rpNeocats.html

He doesn't even know what doctrine IS...

St. Catherine of Siena (Doctor, A.D. 1380)
 
“By shedding both blood and water I showed you the holy baptism of water that you receive through the power of my blood. But I was also showing you the baptism of blood, and this in two ways. The first touches those who are baptized in their own blood for me. Though they could not have the other baptism, their own blood has power because of mine. Others are baptized in fire when they lovingly desire baptism but cannot have it. Nor is there any baptism of desire without [my] blood, for blood has been fused with the fire of divine charity, because it was shed for love.” (The Dialogue)

Scary for me.

WHat about the testimony of Abp. Arrigo Pintonello? He was one of the ONLY bishops who DID NOT SIGN the docuмents of Vatican II and he said Siri was Pope.