Well yes, we all believe there were masonic saboteurs in the Church who were the big pushers for Vatican 2 and especially the "spirit of Vatican 2". But the difference is, if you suppose that Paul VI was pope, then that means it was the pope who sabotaged the Church. I also find it hard to believe that the hierarchy could effectively destroy itself by promulgating and putting into use an invalid rite of ordination.

Dear Stubborn, I understand what you mean, but that's not a problem, it's only a challenge. Obviously, no sede will agree with "R" and remain sedevacantist. The point is there are 3 positions, so we don't need a false dichotomy of 2. There is (1) SVism, (2) R&Rism, and (3) RPWR. Also, I think it can be fairly proved that RPWR derives directly from Archbishop Lefebvre, and not indirectly from Fr. Cekada.

If there were no other reason to reject the acronym "R&R" going forward, the fact that Fr. Cekada, a sede, coined it, should suffice imo. 

As for how to bring Sedes to admit "the first R", which is a challenge for both of those who hold 2 or 3, many possible ways were suggested in the OP. The simplest is from the Pope's appointment of Bishops to dioceses. If there is no Pope for 61 years, all dioceses will fall vacant. But that is heretical. Therefore, 61 year SVism is heretical, and it is necessary to recognize these Popes are True Popes.

All sedes won't immediately agree, but this refutation of their error is quite sound and can be easily defended.

Not for me, not since reading Pope St.Pius X's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, wherein it he says: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". Being that even all the conciliar popes, having followed the established legislation in the matter, have been elected by all the cardinals, well, his word is all I need to believe that the pope is the pope. Although I admit that sometimes the conciliar popes test my faith, but that's just part of keeping the faith. In order to strengthen it, God loves to test our faith all the time.

You misunderstood. I did not say he might not be validly ordained, rather I stressed it is only *my opinion* in the matter that like all NO ordinations, his ordination was doubtful, that is not the Church's opinion. To me it is doubtful, but in order to remove that doubt, he does not have to prove his validity, rather it is those of us with doubt that must prove his invalidity, which, far as I'm concerned, is an impossibility.

I referenced Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis because that is the legislation, the law, the rules of papal election that the conclave of cardinals are bound to adhere to. The pope did all the necessary leg work to ensure that this law produces a genuine, valid pope, otherwise he would have wasted his time and should have gone fishing instead.


Although the conclave of cardinals can elect anyone, we can be pretty sure that one of the cardinals in that conclave is going to be elected the next pope.

In VAC it says this: "No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances."

So we can see it is possible that even if one or more of the cardinals was under some ecclesiastical impediment, even if he were excommunicated he could still be elected pope. Taking the sede theory to it's logical end, all the cardinals are excommunicated ipso facto anyway, yet per VAC, could be elected the next pope, so why worry about an ecclesiastical impediment of a doubtful ordination that is only my opinion?

Hmm, so you're saying then that this is something that Pope St. Pius X never considered when he said that. I disagree with you.

I too disagree with the new rules, yet the pre-V2 popes allowed for heretical cardinals in the conclave, which means that their vote counts, and it also means that if one of the heretic cardinals should have been elected pope, that "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". That's pope St. Pius X's legislation, which makes your verdict of pope Francis being "canonically unqualified", absolutely null and utterly void.

So… you agree with "the rules" when it suits you and disagree with "the rules" when it suits you.
How familiar—the consistent inconsistency that we sedes recognize in your faction and resist.

Are you saying that if a known heretic is elected Pope that somehow, magically or mystically, he will receive an resistible grace that will prevent him from doing any harm to the Church?

Yet, didn't Christ and His Apostles warn us to be wary of wolves who could mislead the faithful. Aren't these heretics wolves? And if so, should not they be deposed?

Yes, Pope Francis should be deposed and even imprisoned. This heretic, Francis, has done tremendous harm to the Catholic Church.

Specifically…

If you believe Pope St. Pius X had the authority to make the rules for the conclave and if you believe that "St." Wojtyla the Second Worst was Pope, consistency demands that you believe Wojtyla had the authority to the change the rules for the conclave. Those changed rules disqualified Jorge.