I have many questions for the menfolk here. Perhaps they would be so kind as to shed some light.

OBSERVATION: BPD's thesis in this presentation is not that "the Chair is vacant." Rather it is that Bergoglio and his immediate predecessors are not Catholic (They Ain't Catholic).

Quoting Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum (13) [minute 1:57] which states in relevant part that [St. Augustine] "denies that anyone who dissents from the Roman Faith can be a Catholic: You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held," BPD makes the following observation:

"Francis does not teach that the Faith of Rome, the Catholic Faith, is to be held. He teaches the opposite. He has explicitly rejected converting atheists, Jєωs, schismatics, and others many times . . . He therefore teaches that non-Catholics do not need to hold the Faith of Rome. "According to Catholic teaching he is not to be considered a Catholic. It's that simple." [minute 2:05 et. seq.]

Now I cannot agree with BPD more; it really is that simple: They Ain't Catholic.

OBSERVATION: BPD's presentation is narrowly focused on "examining the Catholic Church's teaching on professing the true Faith." [minute 1:24 et. seq.]  

BPD affirms that "the Catholic Church teaches that only those who are baptized and profess the true Faith can be considered members of the Catholic Church." [1:28 et. seq.] He cites Mystici Corporis (22) as his authority for this affirmation:

MYSTICI CORPORIS (22): Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those [who] are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

QUESTION 2: Siscoe is employing a distinction in his article: soul of the Church versus body of the Church. Is this a valid distinction? And if it is a valid distinction, has it traditionally been employed to differentiate between particular effects or consequences of heresy in individuals?

BPD well sums up the R&R position as follows: If you claim to be a Catholic, and thus have not declared yourself a heretic by openly leaving the Church, and if you have not been declared a heretic by a Church authority, you cannot be considered a heretic who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, no matter what you say, do, or believe. [screen shot minute 7:32]

OBSERVATION: Common sense enlightened by faith confirms with absolute certitude that They Ain't Catholic. Yet R&R men argue until they bore the world to tears that there are millions of ways to "save the Catholic appearance."

QUESTION: Does R&R blow so hard on this point because they believe that if they concede it, they will have to concede the entire SV conclusion?

Indeed the first premise of the SV is the true amphitheater.

As times goes by; and as the heresy becomes more and more public, malignant, and flagrant; and as more and more R&R men surrender to modernism and go down in flame and shame; the position becomes more and more patently absurd, more and more unreal, more and more dissimulous, more and more dishonorable.

The refusal to admit the truth of the First Premise is more effectively dividing Tradition than any other factor.

Yet I have recently heard some good priests calling spades, spades; and I love them for it.  

The sedevacantist position is schismatic. It has been said that schism is a sin against charity. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Dimond "brothers" have no charity.

QUESTION 2: Siscoe is employing a distinction in his article: soul of the Church versus body of the Church. Is this a valid distinction? And if it is a valid distinction, has it traditionally been employed to differentiate between particular effects or consequences of heresy in individuals?

I think the main way this distinction has been used is as regards BOD, and that catechumens who die before baptism belong to the soul of the Church (but not the body).  The exemplary Mgr. Fenton has shown the problems in referring to it this way http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/BodyandSoul.pdf .  I am not sure if there is a proper and orthodox understanding of the Soul/Body distinction as concerns membership, but it's all a moot point for our consideration since what matters for the government of the Church is that a man be a member of the Church in the strict sense, which means that he be baptized and profess the true faith outwardly.  He could be the most wicked man to ever live, soliciting young boys and cannibalizing cardinals he didn't get along with and still be pope, because he would still be a member in the strict sense so long as he outwardly professed the faith.  But when he ceases to outwardly profess the faith (who could deny this is the case from Paul VI onwards?) he is no longer a member of the Church.

Quote from: MarylandTrad

The sedevacantist position is schismatic. It has been said that schism is a sin against charity. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Dimond "brothers" have no charity.

I find it easier to believe that R&R is schismatic than sedevacantism.

The principle, found in Tradition and canon law, is quite clear: "The First See is judged by no one." This is interpreted to be understand that one cannot judge a Roman Pontiff.

Now sedes do not believe the individual who they judge is the Roman Pontiff. In fact, in their personal judgment he is not the Roman Pontiff. So subjectively, in their minds, sedes are not judging the Roman Pontiff.

In contrast, R&R adherents recognize the Roman Pontiff as such. Even when they engage in doctrine sifting.  Essentially they judge when the Roman Pontiff is in conformity with Apostolic Tradition and when he is not. This judgment even extends to areas where traditionally the Roman Pontiff is understood to be acting infallibly, such as with the recent papal canonizations of Sts John XXIII and John Paul II. To me this seems a lot closer to a schismatic position than judging someone that one does not believe to be pope.

 

You are proof that liberals and sedevacantists really are allies, something that many honorable leaders of the traditional movement have already pointed out.