Friends-

I seem to be stuck in a personal limbo where I can no longer accept that these men who claim the titles of "pope" and "bishops" are wielding true authority given the manifest contradictions promulgated by pope and council over the last 50 years. I am familiar with the arguments FOR SVism and find the arguments, on the face of them, to be systematic and logical. The arguments for R&R are becoming increasingly untenable as well, imho.

I have some questions regarding the actual ramifications of this theory, if true. 5 anti-popes in a row, 50+ years of an empty throne....

If SVism is true, does it logically follow that all the world's bishops are also devoid of authority? Are there some based on either age or orthodoxy true bishops? How could we ever hope to elect another true pope if the college of cardinals are mostly heretics? Does SVism automatically mean that the True Church has been reduced to a few dozen independent chapels scattered throughout the world under a handleful of valid bishops/priests?

Thanks.

Roland,

Set aside the "sedevacantist" issue for a little bit longer and focus on your interior life and prayer.  

However, go back to the idea that the last five (5) popes in a row were anti-popes.  Let's be charitable here and take John Paul I off the list because of the extremely short period of time in which he sat in the chair.  So, it's four popes in a row.

John XXIII - yea or nay?

Unnecessarily opened Vatican II.  Promoted montini to cardinal.  And sundry other things that seem curious.

Paul VI - yea or nay?

From how I see it now, it would take something approaching a miracle to convince me that he wasn't an anti-pope and maybe even an anti-Christ.  The guy changed the Mass, the consecration of bishops, the rite of ordination, he removed the minor orders, he proclaimed the UN the last great hope for mankind....  What didn't he do?  Everything he did was in opposition to what the Holy Church saw pre-Vatican II.  Did I miss anything?

John Paul I - although there's a creepy pattern here...  Vatican II is the New Pentecost to the novus ordites, with popes named John and Paul and then a third one named John Paul (which seems to highlight a personal intention to carry on the new church and it's policies) but, since he died so soon after his election I'm willing to not put the question up there.)

John Paul II - yea or nay?

By the choice of name, it's clear he intended to carry on the new church and it's new ways.  He never corrected any of the abuses.  Instituted the whole Assisi blasphemy which is now seen as part and parcel of conciliarism.

Benedict XVI - yea or nay?

Hey, at least he didn't call himself John XXIV or Paul VII.  He is carrying on the traditions of the new church.    

Correction: the SSPX believes the New Rite of Ordination is doubtful at best:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15270936/Doubtfulness-of-New-Catholic-Ordination-Rite

I seem to be stuck in a personal limbo where I can no longer accept that these men who claim the titles of "pope" and "bishops" are wielding true authority given the manifest contradictions promulgated by pope and council over the last 50 years. I am familiar with the arguments FOR SVism and find the arguments, on the face of them, to be systematic and logical. The arguments for R&R are becoming increasingly untenable as well, imho.

I have some questions regarding the actual ramifications of this theory, if true. 5 anti-popes in a row, 50+ years of an empty throne....

The explanation of the crisis presently assailing Holy Mother Church, commonly known as "sedevacantism" in the discourse of traditional Catholics of the day, is a very complex, polymorphous thing.

To begin with, it must be clarified that there is no such thing as an "official" sedevacantism, for the faithful who professedly subscribe to such a stance do not agree on all important matters, and both their agreements and disagreements are brought about by various and sundry factors: this is due to the fact that not all sedevacantists understand sedevacantism in the same manner.  

A glance of the threads that I myself have posted or wherein I have replied will show you that such is the case.

To be frank, I myself have been in a sort of "suspended animation" on account of the problematic and labyrinthine ramifications and implications of sedevacantism, and have been in the process of critically reviewing the ecclesiological orientation that informs certain interpretations of sedevacantism.

After much prayer, study and discussion, I can definitively state:


               I  

                 still  
 
                       don't  

                               know

                                        all

                                            the  

                                                  answers.
                                                                                                                         

If I would be compelled to give a name to the stance to which I subscribe - though I am loathe to be compartmentalized by a label - I reckon that it would have to be docta ignorantia (thanks, Nicholas of Cusa!).

In light of the liturgical abuses of certain acephalous and vagrant clerics of the sedevacantist persuasion, and beholding the principles pertaining to the Sacred Canons, the notes of the Church, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, &c., woefully misunderstood and abused by the lay followers of these clerics, I cannot identify myself with the sedevacantist persuasion in the same manner as hitherto.

Not that Benedict XVI is to be identified as the Roman Pontiff, or that the polymorphous conglomerate of modernistic constructs brought forth by John XXIII and Paul VI is to be identified as the Ecclesia Christi. These Modernists and ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic internationalists present greater problems, of a more grave and labyrinthine nature, than those of the aforementioned sedevacantists, together with the sectarian novelties which they have brought about. Otherwise, Luther would have been ultimately correct, and therefore the notions of God and of His divine revelation would be have to be debased into irrelevant absurdities, or subjective constructs to be manipulated by the individual as he pleases. There would be really no reason to live, except if one manages to delude himself into some self-complacent solipsism.

Therefore, I cannot identify the "New Order" that John XXIII and Paul VI and their modernist conspirators brought forth as Catholic. No matter how problematic sedevacantism is, assenting to the possibility that Christ would allow His Church to become that: it's just too frightening a notion to entertain. On the other hand, I cannot condemn all those who err in good faith and adhere materially to this "New Order" as being non-Catholic. This includes the hierarchs amongst the visible ecclesiastical structures usurped by the modernists. Just because the Bishops, for example, assented to the Johannine-Pauline constructs by signing the docuмents of the modernists' "council," does not necessary mean that everyone of them incurred the moral culpability and canonical censures concomitant with formal heresy, nor that they thereby lost the cura animarum. No one is competent to categorically define at exactly what point any given Bishop (who did not publicly espouse heretical errors) lapsed formally into heresy, and nor judge the canonical ramifications thereof in both the internal and external forum.

Those "officials" who have "promulgated" and implemented this "New Order" with full deliberation and have remained obstinate in such a mindset, are subject to public scrutiny because they have taken it upon themselves to assume public positions; and, by the way, the same principles of scrutiny apply also to the demagogues, clerical or lay, amongst the faithful of the sedevacantist persuasion. I can therefore say with moral certainty that such individuals ( such as Paul VI, Rahner, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, etc.) can be viewed as having formally lapsed away from the Catholic faith as proposed by Holy Mother Church for the assent of the faithful.

The person of the Roman Pontiff cannot be condemned by any Canon or disciplinary law, because the Pope is not subject to the Sacred Canons: he is either the successor of Saint Peter, having supreme primacy over the Church, or has lapsed formally into heresy and is thereby no longer a member of the Mystical Body of Christ and ipso facto no longer can arrogate to himself the primacy that alone belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff of the Catholic Church.

Some theologians have discussed that the it would be for a council of Bishops, retroactively approved and formally sanctioned by a future Pope, to declare that the lapsed heretic is no longer the Supreme Pontiff, but this is merely to make the factual datum of the heretic in question having lost the Roman Primacy as a dogmatic fact that binds the faithful in conscience so that they would assent to the elevation of a true Supreme Pontiff. This has not yet happened, and this is why I cannot subscribe to what has been called "dogmatic sedevacantism," nor can I say that all who attend the Masses wherein the name of Benedict XVI is mentioned in the Sacred Canon incur the moral culpability of communicatio in sacris. Facts are not dogmas, and I cannot condemn anyone for not assenting to a notion as complex and labyrinthine as sedevacantism in its various forms, whilst striving to eschew the modernists and their "New Order."

I can posit such things because it is a fact that the Johannine-Pauline Council and its concomitant constructs essentially brought forth an Œconomia nova, which constitutes a complete repudiation of the economy established by Christ and preserved by His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Merely reviewing the societal, political, cultural and psychological phenomena that has proven to be inexorably concomitant with the "new economy" of what has been blasphemously called "the new Pentecost," are so many indication that there is such a thing as a Johannine-Pauline anti-Church.

"Then," some may say to me, "if the acephalous and vagrant clergy cannot claim formal Apostolic Succession  but are Catholic notwithstanding because they have preserved the Apostolicitas doctrinæ whensoever they have taught what Holy Mother Church has always taught, and if those materially adhere to Benedict XVI because they truly believe him to be the Roman Pontiff are indeed Catholic, where can I find the Church?"

Regarding the material Apostolicity of the vagrant clergy of the resistance against the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church, this should not be a problem because they can be said to be in expectancy of being duly deputed and Canonically sent to tend the flock of Christ by the authority of the Roman Pontiff: whilst lacking a missio sanctioned by Apostolic mandate, these clerics posses and exercise some sort of titulus coloratus, in virtue of the principles of epikeia whereby the Church supplies them in each single instance the necessary jurisdiction whereby they may administer the Sacraments to the faithful and preach the Holy Faith unto the same: this jurisdiction cannot be said to be ordinary, neither habitual or delegated, nor does it have to be during an interregnum. They cannot claim a missio extraordinaria, nor cite eschatological explanations for such a thing because the perpetuity and indestructibility of the Church of Christ would be compromised thereby.

The faithful who materially adhere to the Johannine-Pauline structures operate in good conscience and thereby evade any moral culpability regarding their association with the modernists, whom they erroneously believe to have been "sent" by Christ through His Church. I can posit this on their behalf and not on behalf of such heretics as the Protestant sects or the Oriental schismatic churches, because these people truly wish to be Catholics and they understand that adherence to the Apostolic See is what makes one Catholic. They cannot see what the ecclesiologists of ages past never thought to be probable, though some of them discussed the theoretical possibility thereof.

"So," some may insist, "where is the Church?"

If I had all the answers and could fix all the problems, I would not need to have the Church of Christ to guide me as illuminatrix et moderatrix mea dulcis ac benedicta. What I do know is that the Church in herself is a wondrous mystery that no created effability can properly describe. It far transcends the rantings of cranks and party-liners of the numberless "groups" and "movements" out there, or of the culpably negligent and ignorant clerics and layfolk (the latter would include me), and it can never be debased as the harlot of the modernists. Any "solution" that takes away from the super-nature of the mysterium Ecclesiæ and of the Mystical Body of Christ, will ultimately lead to aberration and error.

There is one way, however, to approach the question "Ubi (aut, Quomodo) nunc invenire possumus Ecclesiam Christi?"

In His sublime eschatological discourse, Our Lord presents certain mysterious auguries whereby we may answer this paramount and central question. Regarding the Modernists, we have been warned, "Et multi pseudoprophetæ surgent, et seducent multos. Et quoniam abundabit iniquitas, refrigescet charitas multorum. Qui autem persevevarit usque in finem, hic salvus erit. Tunc si quis vobis dixerit: Ecce hic Christus, aut illic: nolite credere" (S. Matt. cap. xxiv., 11-13, 23). Again, against the same heretics and charlattans, whether in the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church or those who seek to delude the faithful resisting this nefarious abomination by manipulating their emotions and ideas, we have also been warned, "Surgent enim pseudochristi, et pseudoprophetæ: et dabunt signa magna, et prodigia, ita ut in errorem inducantur (si fieri potest) etiam electi. Si ergo dixerint vobis: Ecce in deserto est, nolite exire: ecce in penetralibus, nolite credere" (ibid., 24, 26).

"Ubi possumus invenire Ecclesiam Christi in hoc sæculo?" Our Lord Himself had told us, which is that which He had told the Pharisees and Sadducees, recorded by Saint Matthew (cap. xvi.,  4): "Faciem ergo cæli dijudicare nostis: signa autem temporum non potestis scire? Generatio mala et adultera signum quærit: et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Jonæ prophetæ. Et relictis illis, abiit." Shortly thereafter, the sacred Evangelist narrates the confession of St. Peter and how Our Lord responded by vouchsafing the great promise of the foundation of His Church upon the same St. Peter (ibid., 18, 19). I cannot believe it to be merely coincidental that these aforementioned events are narrated in the selfsame chapter of the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew.

It is the earnest and persevering cultivation of the interior life that is most important, particularly by means of perfect devotion to the great Mother of God, Blessed Mary ever-Virgin. Confiding in her maternal tutelage and regal patronage, it behooves us to discern the mysterious "signum Jonæ prophetæ," particularly by paying heed to the message of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima; so that we may not also be guilty of the censure of Our Lord, "Faciem ergo cæli dijudicare nostis: signa autem temporum non potestis scire?"

The ineffable magnificence and clemency of the Lord God is to be lauded and super-extolled on account of the visitation of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima, and her promulgation of the grand epitome of Divine Revelation as found in the Holy Scriptures, particularly the Gospels and the Epistles, and in sacred Tradition, as taught by Holy Mother Church: a little Summa of dogmatic and moral theology of great simplicity and practicality. If one were to put into practice this great message of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima with great generosity and self-abnegation, they would simply be following the way of salvation and perfection as outlined by Our Lord in the Gospels and by the Apostles in their Epistles, and as taught by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, together with the Saints and other masters of the spiritual life.

If one follows the counsels that our Heavenly Mother gave at Fatima with great generosity and magnanimity that presupposes complete and universal mortification, both exterior and interior, and a docility to the operations of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which presupposes in turn the active and passive purification of the senses and of the soul, then the interior soul could arrive at the mystical union which St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross saw as the normal efflorescence of the interior life. The unicity of asceticism and mysticism in the interior life as taught by these great Doctors and their commentators makes it clear that the soul ought to attain to the heights of the unitive life since grace and charity ought always to increase in us more and more day by day, especially ought they to augment significantly after each Holy Communion.

Again, the value of the message of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima consists precisely in how faithful a mirror it is of Divine Revelation and the doctrines of the Saints and theologians. It synthesized in a practical manner the doctrines of St. Louis-Marie de Montfort and laid out a practical program whereby we may consecrate ourselves entirely to Jesus through Mary and be enabled to attain to that apostolic zeal and charity that will enable us to edify our brethren and help restore Holy Mother Church and Christian civilization.

Amidst the designs of Divine Providence whereby the infinite excess of the eternal charity of the Lord God has fore-ordained all things that they may co-operate for the greater good of His predilect servants, the one which most puzzles interior souls is the vocation to follow our Divine Savior in the via dolorosa, whilst carrying our Cross and even espousing ourselves unto the same in devout enthusiasm and self-effacing love: "Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semet ipsum et tollat crucem suam et sequatur me" (S. Matt. cap. xvi., 24). Verily this is a very great grace and a glorious way of ascending unto the heights of the interior life, according as it is written, "Deus qui præcingit me virtute et posuit inmaculatam viam meam, qui perfecit pedes meos tamquam cervorum et super excelsa statuens me" (Ps. xvii. 33-34). Yet it is true: "multi autem sunt vocati pauci vero electi" (S. Matt. cap. xxii., 14).

This is essentially the great "signum Jonæ prophetæ:" to be given over in perfect devotion to Jesus through Mary, and thereby be enabled by holy grace to fulfill what is written in Holy Writ: "expecta Dominum, viriliter age et confortetur cor tuum et sustine Dominum" (Ps. xxvi. 14); "In capite libri scriptum est de me ut facerem voluntatem tuam, Deus meus volui et legem tuam in medio cordis mei" (Ps. xxxix. 8-9).

To return to the heavenly Jerusalem, tropologically signifying the life of prayer and contemplation, imitating Our Lady and St. Joseph when they repaired unto Jerusalem to seek the Child Jesus (S. Luc. cap. ii., 45 sqq.), and thereby bearing within us by living faith the great "signum Jonæ prophetæ" throughout the mystical three days' trial, is the way we can find Our Lord Jesus in His Mystical Body, the Church unto whom He espoused Himself upon the Cross.




Oh, uh, anyways..

Docta ignorantia, or whatever you wish to call it, is the best to which I can attain without exceeding my limited capacities and daring to aspire to heights wherein no mortal mind is to ascend in the present economy of Providence.

It is a quizzical and labyrinthine question, and one that exposes in a sublime manner the profundity, immensity, height and unfathomable extent of the mysterium Ecclesiæ. The ecclesiologists had just begun to discover the awesome and dread mysteries of the Church of the Word Incarnate when the progress of sacred science was derailed by the onslaught of modernism.

Whatever position any individual Catholic adopts will be of no avail for him if he does not give himself over to works of piety, charity and penance; perseveringly practice interior and exterior mortification; and frequent the holy Sacraments and seek the spiritual direction of a devout and learned Priest; and abandon himself with filial confidence unto the designs of Divine Providence, whilst consecrating himself to Mary Most Holy as her unworthy servant, so that she may jealously preserve him by her benign tutelage and patronage as Mediatress of All Graces.

That is what I had to say.

I agree that Catholics are not obliged to accept SV.  But it is Divine Law that a Public heretic cannot be Pope.  And valid Popes cannot bind on the Catholic Church what the V2 leaders have bound on the Church of Montini/Paul6.

Paul IV did solemnly define that a public heretic cannot be Pope.  And this was consistently taught before and after Paul IV's teaching.  

The ramifications?

Until the majority of traditionalists are convinced of the above facts we will be stuck between a rock and a hard place.  Kind putting out the fire while feeding the flame.  

When all true Catholics have nothing to do with the heretic and apostate that claims to be the head of the Catholic Church, and do not fall for he's deceptions and embrace the modernized version of the traditional Mass which he will continually update, and stop giving money to that Church things could improve.

Lefebvre said something to the extent that as long as new Church is schismatic and heretical they can have nothing to do with it.  Why don't his followers follow that to its logical conclusion and truly have nothing to do with it and realize that a heretical Pope who binds and maintains anti-Catholic doctrines, liturgy, council and canon law is no Pope at all, and that we do not have to wait for a declaration because he falls from his office, if he ever held it, by the very fact of his heretical teaching.

I would not focus on what type of authority the only visible Catholic bishops in the world have, because there is nothing we can do about it.  It is one of many things that will need to get sorted out when we get a Catholic Pope.  

We need to focus primarily on our spiritual life.  The Devil is winning because the only true Catholics left spend most of their time fighting with each other.

At the very least the bishops have the authority to give us the sacraments, and to teach rule and sanctify.  I believe this.  You will get pulled in different directions here.  But we can't change the facts regardless of what they are.

I tend to think Griff is right on the following:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/12Sep/sep4str.htm

Note the following from the above article:

Assertion 5: Bishops receive jurisdiction over their flocks directly from the Roman pontiff.
   
This is certain.

    In the previous assertion [4, that bishops must be adopted by the authority of the pope in order to be able to exercise jurisdiction over their flocks, presented herein below - GR] it was pointed out that the establishment of individual bishops always involves some intervention by the pope. The bishops, we saw, cannot actually exercise their jurisdiction over their flocks without the consent, explicit or implicit, of the pope. Another question now remains to be answered: what is the precise connection between papal confirmation in office and episcopal jurisdiction? Is papal intervention simply a condition for the reception of episcopal jurisdiction, or is it a cause? Briefly, do the bishops receive jurisdiction directly from God, or only indirectly through the mediation of the Roman Pontiff?

Prior to Mystici Corporis, two opinions were held by Catholics:

1. Some theologians taught that God directly confers episcopal jurisdiction in each individual instance, either by the very consecration of the bishop, or in some other way. Consequently those authors were of the opinion that the pope either merely assigned the bishop his flock, or limited the bishop's divinely conferred jurisdiction to a definite church, or by his consent fulfilled some condition without which Christ would not confer jurisdiction on the individual bishop, etc. But no matter how they explained the matter, they all admitted that jurisdiction was bestowed from heaven always in dependence upon and with subordination to the supreme pontiff, so that the pope could always restrict, extend, or even completely prohibit the exercise of that jurisdiction. This opinion, once hotly defended in the Council of Trent, was described by Benedict XIV as: "backed by valid arguments."

2. The other, and always the majority opinion, maintained that bishops received their jurisdiction not directly, but indirectly from God. They receive it, in other words, through the supreme pontiff who, in establishing them as bishops, at the same time by explicit will, or at least by legal will, confers jurisdiction upon them. This second opinion, in the judgment of the same Benedict XIV, "seems: (a) more in harmony with reason; and (b) more in harmony with authority."

The traditional bishops come from a line of bishops that were approved by valid Popes.  Thuc, Lefebvre, Castro De-Mayer (help?) & Mendez who was approved by John 23 who I believe was a material Pope, and that the first clear cut heresy did not become manifest until 1964 when Lumen Gentium was approved.
This theory was been peer reviewed by many CMRI priests and John Lane and they saw no flaws in it though they do not promote it themselves.  

The bishops who were papally approved consecrated future bishops for the Church, all Catholic Bishops consecrated by them or those in their line join the Roman Catholic Church and are fully legitimate members of that Church whose head is the Roman Pontiff, when one exists.  During the history of the Church Bishops have had full authority without the expressed approval of a Pope.  It is a doctrine that they receive their jurisdiction from a Pope but I am not sure we fully understand of if it has even been exhaustively taught what exactly this means.  We see things like "implicit or legal will" and we know they have functioned in the past with full authority without the expressed will of a Pope even the doctrine that they get their jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff was always true.  This is an apparent but not a legitimate contradiction.  

It is something that us laypeople need not lose sleep over or let affect our spiritual lives, the clergy have a burden far heavier than we have, which is to fully form our conscience and to obey that conscience to the best of our ability, going to good Priests and theological works, if our state in life permits, for advice on what we should do.  The advice is to go to a valid Mass as often as you can so long as the sermons are not poisonous.  Go to frequent Confession.  Wear the brown scapular and miraculous medal devoutly and have a steady prayer life.  Avoid mortal sin and venial sin to the extent such is possible and be ready at all times to meet your Maker.

The true Church is neither in the N.O. nor hidden in the woods somewhere.  It is found in our Catholic Bishops.

I do not think God would leave us without fully functional Catholic Bishops.  I believe at a minimum there has to be at least one fully functioning Catholic Bishop in the world for the Church to be visible as it must be.  Such a Bishop is not to be found anywhere but in the valid Bishops who hold the Catholic faith, otherwise known as the traditional Bishops.  They have all the power that the Church needs them to have.

 Assertion 5: Bishops receive jurisdiction over their flocks directly from the Roman pontiff. This is certain.

How such is interpreted while we are limping around without a visible head is subject to error.  Like the dogma of "No Salvation of the Church" it is easy to be lead astray without an infallible head to guide us.  The greatest of intellects can be led astray without an infallible guide.  Everything can be misinterpreted.  I could give numerous examples.

I will not but the one to say I know how that doctrine effects us today nor will I condemn anyone who holds a different opinion than I do on how to interpret the doctrine in our day.  

Quote from: Deliveringit

All of your questions are answered here,,,,
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf

that answer nothing at all, those people are scam artists and kooks, short and simple......sorry you fall for it.....HFM is a front

They are what you say, but they provide the truth in that link as it is the Church's teaching they present, not their own.  If you read the response to the objections disspassionately without considering who it is, in this case, who presents the teachings, you will have trouble refuting the responses, because they are irrefutable.  Well respected people give us the same responses to those objections.

The link provided is a good link, though the Dimonds themselves, do not appear to be good people.

Quote from: Belloc

Quote from: Deliveringit

All of your questions are answered here,,,,
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf

that answer nothing at all, those people are scam artists and kooks, short and simple......sorry you fall for it.....HFM is a front

They are what you say, but they provide the truth in that link as it is the Church's teaching they present, not their own.  If you read the response to the objections disspassionately without considering who it is, in this case, who presents the teachings, you will have trouble refuting the responses, because they are irrefutable.  Well respected people give us the same responses to those objections.

The link provided is a good link, though the Dimonds themselves, do not appear to be good people.

Would have bothered with link if it was not the Dem...er, Dimonds....John Lane and others more credible......all the yrs of dealing w/HFM and their diatribe, makes one resistant to "dispassion"

But without a living Pope for so long, there is no way for Apostolic succession strictly so called to continue.

That is impossible to prove.