Emerentiana, Exilenomore is one of us.  He is saying he is in communion with the empty See of Peter.

He is also apparently from Dutch-speaking Belgium.  I was about to write something to him in German.  Why do Belgium and Germany have the same flag?

gladius_veritatis said:

That is why I do not hold to SVism.  It leans too far toward the order of fact, more or less doing away with the order of law.

Then cuм Ex Apostolatus, the Code of Canon Law 1917 and St. Robert Bellarmine do away with the order of law.  

I find the Cassiciacuм thesis to be well-nigh incomprehensible though I'm sure Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was well-intentioned.  Some say it contains heretical implications but I won't start a fight.  I think, like SSPX but leaning more towards the truth, that it is comforting for some people, it allows you to have your cake and eat it too, to be traditional but not take the step of saying the Pope isn't the Pope.  

Anyway, I am absolutely certain that it is wrong, but I know that means little as I am a layman, have been wrong before, etc.

Quote

Despite the mental acrobacy and linguistic gymnastics of

Quote

those who 'recognise and resist', it is better to be in communion with the empty See of Rome than to set up a 'Gallican See' against what you claim to be the See of Rome.

Sedevacantists believe the See of Rome is vacant. SSPX believes we HAVE a pope! Sedes are the ones who are in communion with the empty See of Rome. Opposite of what you stated, if I got it right!

I was agreeing with you, actually.

I know I am not the sharpest pencil in the drawer but I don't get this:

The C-thesis actually holds that a 'papa materialiter' is no Pope at all, because the form is lacking. It simply means that he can become a Pope if the obex (in this case heresy and doubtful episcopal consecration) is removed. Until that happens, the designated person simply has the appearances (accidentes) of the papacy, but is not a Pope in reality (realiter). It is basically the same thing as the sede vacante thesis, in my opinion. It is simply more deeply worked out.

When it comes to "Pope" either he is or isn't, and if someday this person converts from his heresy, and should move up to the papacy, in good conscience and humility, he should resign as a result of his past Modernism, that is if he is what he should be.  Personally I think this position is a cop out!    

I think this position is a cop out!    

It is clear from your comment that you do not understand it.  No biggie, as it has not been explained at length, in detail, etc.

If you come to understand it, you may still disagree with it, but I doubt you would call it a cop out.

Do you really think the man who wrote the Ottaviani Intervention was the kind to cop out?

A commission under ABL wrote it. Which thelogian are you speaking of in particular?

Also, does anyone edit wikipedia here?

This is the most horrendously biased history of the Ottaviani Intervention I've ever read....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention#cite_note-0

Bishop (then Father) Guérard des Lauriers was the main author of the Ottaviani Intervention. A fact which is often forgotten.

This is all the way back from page 8. I think it needs to go into that 'Best of the Best' Matt keeps referring to!

I might have said this (to you) before --

I don't attend the NOVUS ORDO. I am a fellow Resister. I am just (in my opinion) more prudent -- less drastic -- in how I carry out my resistance.

And I'm not "embracing" OR "rejecting" the pope -- I'm merely staying put and doing nothing as regards the pope -- and since Catholics aren't normally given a choice upon joining the Church "Pope or non-Pope?" (like restaurants ask you "smoking or non-smoking?") -- I "recognize" the pope because that's the default position for a Catholic. Catholics aren't supposed to decide if they want a Pope in their life or not!

How much guidance I get from him on a daily basis is another story.

I think that's one point you miss.

If Catholics WERE normally given a choice (say, for the last 500 years) to follow a Pope or not, then your choice would simply be the inverse of mine, with no other nuances.

But that's NOT the case, because my choice also happens to be the DEFAULT position for a Catholic. A Catholic who just wants to "hold to what he knows to be true" and stay put until this mess is sorted out will acknowledge the pope, even if he's a bad one in fact.

I think the SSPX reaction to the crisis is more prudent, even if yours is more psychologically satisfying (and is easier for people to grasp).

Here is my take: In the Catholic Church today, there are (bishops, priests, laymen) who have lost the Faith, those who have mostly lost it, some who are losing it, and some who have almost miraculously kept it. Where each man stands I try not to worry about, unless it affects me and my family. I'll "let" God judge each person in His own good time. I have enough to worry about regarding my own soul and raising my children Catholic.

If I bother to discuss my Faith with a nonbeliever, I usually have to mention the Crisis in some way.

Matthew

This is also an excellent article from TKGS.

Though some of his concerns are addressed by Matt's quotes above, and I just so happen agree with the latter more often than not on positions in the Crisis in the Church, this is an excellent post and worth reading if you have time:

Dear Matthew, et. al.,

First of all, I would like to point out that I never “decided to become” sedevacantist.  Even now, I do not claim to be a sedevacantist though I suppose the label is a fairly accurate representation of my beliefs on the matter according to the definition provided:  “believing that the man commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI is not the pope.”  On the other hand, I would suggest a better definition, at least for my part, would be, “not knowing or understanding how the man commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI could be the pope.”

Secondly, before I begin to attempt to answer your questions, I want to note that the questions were originally posted before I found the Catholic Info Forum.  After reading through the original post it seemed that the questions were asked in good faith; an attempt by a faithful Catholic to understand the thoughts and reasons that has led other faithful Catholics to come to completely disparate conclusions.  However, after seeing some of the other topics that seem to have their genesis in the resurfacing of the original  post and some of the consequences that have resulted, I am a little puzzled as to the reason the questions were even asked.

There have been comments on this forum critical of what has been called, “dogmatic sedevacantism”.  It is my understanding that this term used here essentially means that one holds the opinion that one must be a sedevacantist in order to be a member of the Catholic Church.  I’ve noticed that there is another notion that has been expressed on this forum which could be termed, “dogmatic anti-sedevacantism” or “dogmatic sedeplenism”; in other words, the idea that if one does not accept a particular claimant to the papacy, one is outside the Church.  The very idea that neither one of these concepts is required for salvation seems to be lost on many.

The reason I had joined the Catholic Info forum was because the forum seemed to allow for the free discussion of the sedevacantist issue.  For the most part, this still seems to be true as I write this, though the freedom to defend the sedevacantist thesis may be waning.  I hope that the freedom does not because for people (including myself) explore the truth in the matter, arguments in defense of the thesis must be permitted without fear of retribution.  On another traditional Catholic forum to which I belong, members are free to condemn any person whose comments merely question and the forum’s programming itself is designed to ridicule the very word “sedevacantism”.  As a result, legitimate questions cannot be asked or answered and, if I am wrong on the question, I cannot be righted.

The biggest problem is that there is no forum I know of that one can truly debate the issue of sedevacantism.  Ultimately, the discussion breaks down with one side or the other making ad hominem arguments rather than addressing the issue.  I understand this problem as passions run deep in favor of each side of the argument, both arguments have valid considerations, and, often enough, proponents of both sides seem to misunderstand, intentionally or otherwise, the opposing arguments.  Frankly, I believe the misunderstanding is more prevalent on the anti-sedevacantist side since most sedevacantists started out fully accepting the claims of the papacy by the Conciliar claimants.  The only forum that I’ve ever been acquainted with that truly allowed full and open debate of the issue was the now closed St. Belarmine Forum run by Mr. John Lane.

The most curious thing I have noticed about traditional Catholic forums is that members feel absolutely free to condemn, as non-Catholic, nearly anyone for any reason with one, and only one, exception.  The only person that cannot be condemned is the person commonly accepted by world to be the pope in the Vatican.  Even bishops and cardinals are not exempt.  Cardinal Kasper has been condemned as non-Catholic on this and other forums for his recent comments about his greatest “regret” being the lack of shared communion between Catholics and Protestants.  Yet one cannot even question the pope who maintains Cardinal Kasper in office and in good standing.  Before his election, even Cardinal Ratzinger was subject to the wrath of internet forum scribes.

The Vatican will discipline, on those rare occasions, people only for their actions (e.g., Bishop Malingo was disciplined only after he married) but never, it seems, for their proudly proclaimed heretical beliefs.  Cardinal Kasper and other cardinals, bishops, and famous theologians routinely make declarations that any Catholic with even the slightest knowledge of the Catholic Faith can recognize as heresy with only the slightest, if any, peep from Rome.  The Faith and Doctrine seem to be unimportant to Roman officials from the lowliest bureaucrat to the Holy Father himself.

Of course, nothing I’ve written or will write is going to prove anything, nor will this essay truly answer anything.  It will not be my attempt, yet, prove any thesis but only to give, somewhat, a background of some of my thoughts on the matter and directly answer the questions asked about what I think.  When I was merely a “conservative Catholic” I knew something was wrong.  I wondered what would finally “break the camel’s back” for the conservative Catholic press.  Once I thought it might be the official acceptance of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the priesthood but the Vatican abrogated the law that forbid such ordinations without nary a word from the “peanut gallery”.  Recent news seems to indicate that some agitators are calling for “gender equality laws” to force the Church to ordain women and, in one forum, I’ve already seen a comment about the power of Peter to bind and loose.  How many traditional Catholics, should the Vatican cave on this one, will continue to go along with the New Church and continue to condemn sedevacantists?  I know, I know…it’s an hypothetical question that an anti-sedevacantists will deny can happen; but I had been told that the Vatican could never officially sanction altar girls, Communion in the hand, or the ordination of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

I will attempt to answer the questions Matthew asked in order.  I do not intend to restate each question, however, and some questions will be answered together since they are intimately interlinked.  These answers are my own and should not be construed as speaking for others.  Even that often seems to be a major problem.  All too often, the remarks of one individual is posited as being absolutely representative of everyone who is perceived to be in that “group”, and this is especially true of anti-sedevacantists.  I reject that idea.  I do not speak for the Dimond Brothers, nor do they speak for me.  I do not attribute the statements by Conciliar Catholics as being representative of the beliefs of all people “attached” to the Novus Ordo.  Indeed, I do not attribute the actions of Benedict XVI to everyone who believes his claims to the papacy.  On the other hand, if one declares an heretical belief and refuses to listen to correction, I will consider one an heretic, and therefore a non-Catholic, whether a formal declaration has been made by some authority or not.  
*
I have been attending the traditional Mass for just over five years.  Prior to my realization that I could no longer attend the Novus Ordo, I attended only the Novus Ordo.  At that time I really believed that, whatever the problem was, it could be solved, or at least greatly mitigated, for me and my family by simply finding “the right” parish.  I would search for a “conservative” parish with a priest who wasn’t “too liberal” or take “too many” liberties with the Mass.  For a long time I reflexively believed the pope was the man commonly known as the pope.  Today, I don’t understand how he can be the pope after I have seen him, with my own eyes, live on network television, commit an act of apostasy, praying to Allah with the Muslims in a mosque.  I’ve heard all the excuses but none of them are compelling, let alone reasonable.

This realization did not grow over time.  It came upon me like a ton of bricks.  Since 2000, the Archbishop of Indianapolis has hosted an “Interfaith Thanksgiving Service” the Tuesday evening prior to the American Thanksgiving Day holiday in November.  The year I attended to observe the “celebration”, there were representatives from a variety of “Indianapolis Faith Communities”:  a female Jєωιѕн cantor, a Hindu minister, a Muslim Imam, Tibetan Buddhist priests (or monks, I’m not sure), a Methodist minister, and Head Granthi of the Sikh Satsung.  The event is not an exercise in “cultural awareness” but is rather a gathering of peoples of many religions giving thanks to their respective gods (though I’m not sure what the Buddhists did since they have no god) and it was, in every sense of the word, a religious event.  Indeed, it was a pan-religious event held in the Cathedral in honor of Satan himself with the Indianapolis Archbishop warmly welcoming him and all his minions.  It reflected the very definition of pantheism.  For a Catholic to participate is apostasy:  There is no other adequate description.

Many years ago, the Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, gave a sermon at Midnight Mass on Christmas Day saying that the Blessed Virgin can not be properly called the Mother of God but only the Mother of Christ.  Even though the Council of Nicea had once and for all condemned the heresy of Arius, Nestorius attempted to reinvigorate that detestable teaching under veiled language.  Ultimately, he was condemned for preaching heresy.  It is inconceivable to me that had Nestorius never given that sermon but instead invited the Pagans into the Cathedral in Constantinople to give thanks to their Pagan gods he would have been remembered in history as a good and faithful servant of God.  While he would not have been remembered as an heresiarch, he would have been remembered as Nestorius the Apostate.  If I am wrong in this assessment then I will willingly reconsider my judgment.  I await the argument.

When the layman, Eusebius, stood up during Nestorius’s sermon to declare that “We have an Emperor but we have no Bishop!” I think it is accurate to guess that not everyone in the Cathedral immediately withdrew their communion with Nestorius.  After all, Nestorius was the bishop and had been properly and legally installed.  He offered the Divine Liturgy according to the Traditions passed on to him from antiquity.  He was the bishop!  By what right does a mere simply layman depose him?  Not every faithful Catholic immediately departed him just as not every faithful Catholic has departed from the bishops (even the bishop of Rome) that have rejected Christ to embrace false teachings, false gods, and promotes or tolerates every imaginable abuse of God in the Blessed Sacrament.
*
I reiterate that I know I have not proven any thesis, nor will I prove any thesis.  It is not my intention to prove a thesis in this essay as I am simply not competent to do so (as many on this forum will heartily agree).  If individuals would like a more scholarly work to review, I suggest they read the essays on Mr. John Lane’s website (www.strobertbellarmine.net/index.htm) or subscribe to The Four Marks (www.thefourmarks.com/) and pick up the back issues in which a very scholarly essay is being serialized entitled “The Church Crucified”.
*
As for which claimants to the papacy in Rome have not been true popes, all I can say is that I am convinced that, at least, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have not been.  I think it is interesting that traditional Catholics who have, for years, rejected the Novus Ordo and have attended a Mass that Paul VI clearly desired to be abandoned, declaring the new Mass to be the Mass of the Roman Rite, willfully disregarded the authority in a matter of sacramental discipline of the man they regard as pope.  On the other hand, I will accept the possibilities that he may have been the true pope, he may have lost his right to the papacy, or he may never have been a true pope.  I simply do not know and at this point of time, I will leave the matter to the future historians and the Church.  It is the here and now that is important as it is the present teaching of the Roman Pontiff that is leading souls to hell.

In his series entitled, “The Church Crucified”, that has appeared in The Four Marks, John Lane wrote something that shows that the issue of sedevacantism isn’t brand new and it must be taken seriously.  This short passage, of course, does not prove the thesis, but it does indicate that the faithful, and not the “lunatic fringe” faithful, were beginning to ask questions concerning the papacy and the pope as early as the mid-1960s.  Was Paul VI a true pope (or John Paul I, for that matter)?  I am not prepared to answer at this time, but I will not condemn the questioners.  They had legitimate concerns at the time which were not answered just as the concerns of questioners today are not answered.  This is what Mr. Lane wrote:

Quote

On December 7, 1965 the most controversial of all the docuмents of Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanæ, was promulgated by Paul VI.  In that very same month, an arresting question was raised at the American Ecclesiastical Review.  “What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church?”  Rev. Francis J. Connell, CSSR, the theologian who responded, gave the standard answer from the theology manuals, as one would expect.  But this was a case in which the answer was not the point of interest—the question was.

The same question has been popping up, with greater and greater frequency and with increasing insistence, ever since.

*
I do not accept the claims of any of the various “popes” around the world.  The papacy is not an office in and of itself.  That is, the Bishop of Phoenix cannot be declared the pope unless he relinquish the Diocese of Phoenix and assume the See of Rome.  A claimant to the Holy See who has no clergy in Rome can not, by that very fact, be the pope.  I am not personally aware of any claimant to the Holy See, except Benedict XVI, who commands any allegiance of any of the clergy of Rome.  And frankly, given the state of the Church today, I wonder how much allegiance even Benedict XVI commands other than the applause he is given when he appears.  Since Paul VI issued Humana Vitæ papal commands have pretty much become worthless.
*
The Church is, by definition, a visible society on earth along with the invisible society in Purgatory and in Heaven.  I am not sure whether or not a denial of this fact would constitute heresy, but it would certainly be in error.  That said, I believe the faithful Catholic, whether he mistakenly believes that Benedict XVI is the pope or not, is part of that visible society.  While Jesus Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of days, he never promised that it will be large or that it would control a city-state in the middle of Rome.  As Saint Athanasius famously penned during the Arian Crisis, “What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside.  It is a fact that they have the premises—but you have the Apostolic Faith.  They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith.  You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you....  Even if Catholics who are faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”  The Church is visible even if it is reduced to a mere handful.  I find it amusing that members of this and other traditional Catholic forums can, and often do, anathematize various theologians (Father Andrew Greely and Father Hans Kung who are both priests in “good standing” in their respective dioceses, for example), bishops and cardinals (e.g., Cardinals Kasper and Mahony) but refuse to anathematize Benedict XVI who says and does many of the very same things.
*
In the recent past, a few priests of the Society of Saint Pius X have been expelled because of their outspoken criticism of the ongoing talks between the Society and Rome.  (I will not debate the utility of these talks since I’ve not really been privy to all that has been discussed.  Though I will say that if the Society holds firm to what the leaders have been saying I don’t see a problem even as others do see a problem.)  When I am asked if there is any priest or bishop I would currently trust or follow in matters of faith without judging his every move, I have to answer that there are several priests that I know whom I would follow.  On the other hand, just as a layman who attends Society parishes would have to make a judgment if his priest were expelled from the Society, I would have to make a judgment if a priest begins to stray from my understanding of the Catholic Faith without adequately explaining, teaching, and defending his actions and doctrine.  If his teaching is shown to be according to the Catholic Faith I would modify my understanding and if his teaching was not shown to be according to the Catholic Faith, I would depart from him.

People who are comfortable with their current priest (as are most lay faithful of the Society) overly criticize sedevacantists as people who personally judge every move and parse every sentence of every sermon delivered by a priest to make sure he’s not uttering some sort of heretical doctrine or, heaven forbid, accept the pope!.  All, I daresay even most, sedevacantists are not akin to the Dimond Brothers.  Some sedevacantists do indeed unjustly anathematize those in communion with Benedict XVI, but most, I think, remember the time they also believed the occupier in Rome was the pope and understand that one can sincerely believe in one of the various theories that allows for a legitimate pope who can hold, teach, and countenance  the heresies rampant throughout the Conciliar Church and clearly taught by its ordinary magisterium.  In fact, I have generally found that it is traditional Catholics who accept the claims to the papacy of Benedict XVI who are more prone to be judging every statement of priests (and suspected sedevacantists) for signs of that scourge of sedevacantism.  I wonder if the question is asked out of a genuine desire to understand the thinking of sedevacantists or if it is asked as part of some sort of psychological projection.

This topic was introduced with a most curious statement:  “The list covers the various opinions, or ‘what things you have to pick a position on’, to illustrate how complicated Sedevacantism actually is.”  There is one glaring problem with that sentence.  Even though there are a number of questions that really do not have anything to do with sedevacantism, they are all issues about which even the non-sedevacantist must “pick a position on”.  Indeed, there is great disagreement in traditional Catholic circles over the issue of so-called Natural Family Planning (NFP), an issue which is raised later.  I know sedevacantists, anti-sedevacantists, traditional Catholics, non-traditional Catholics, and even liberal Catholics who say that NFP is most certainly sinful and an abomination, and others of each persuasion who say otherwise.  The same can be said for Baptism of Desire (except that I know of no liberal Catholics who deny it).  It is not sedevacantism that is especially complicated, it is the lack of a pope who teaches the faith unambiguously and in conformity with the constant teaching of the Church’s magisterium since her beginning that is complicated.
*
The next question asked is, quite frankly, mysterious.  It does not seem to have any relevance to the sedevacantist thesis, so I will restate this question verbatim:  “How do you reconcile the fact that the world is VERY dangerous as an influence, and that we need Mass and the sacraments (and to a lesser degree, the moral support of fellow Catholics) to save our souls?”  Since the fall of Adam, I can think of no time that the world was not a very dangerous influence.  Since the foundation of the Church, I can think of no time that Catholics have not needed the Mass and the sacraments.  Even though I am not convinced, and in fact positively doubt, the claim of Benedict XVI as pope, I have not been deprived of the sacraments nor of the moral support of fellow Catholics either personally or through traditional Catholic forums such as Catholic Info.

While there are indeed those “home alone” Catholics who do not accept that any priests today may lawfully provide the sacraments; I do not subscribe to the theory.  I have not yet seen any credible arguments for this thesis, but I can not consider those who hold them, at this time, to necessarily be heretics or schismatics.  There have been numerous times when some Catholics have been deprived of most of the sacraments, the generations of Japanese after the emperor had expelled all priests from Japan is the most striking example.  Though the hierarchal Church had completely disappeared from Japan, the Catholic population was able to continue and even thrive.  The Japanese Catholics surely suffered many difficulties but they also certainly did survive and there is no reason to assume that all of them suffered eternally due to their depravation of the sacraments.
*
I was not aware that only a future council can judge the pope.  In fact, I thought that Vatican I definitively declared that a council is not superior to a pope.  Thus, the proposition that a council can judge a pope is objectively material heresy.  On the other hand, if Benedict XVI (and before him, John Paul II and possibly others) are not actually popes, then a future council can indeed judge one or more of these men to have been imposters or usurpers of the Holy See and, since they are/were not popes, I, as a layman, am not judging the pope.

I realize that this sounds a bit like sophistry but the Church has already given us historical examples in order to judge other Catholics’ status within the Church.  The first case is that of Nestorius which I previously mentioned.  Just as in the case of the pope, the Church grants no authority to laymen to depose or deny the bishopric of any given bishop, but this is not what the layman, Eusubius, did.  He merely observed the clearly manifest truth that the See was vacant as the properly and legally installed bishop had fallen from office due to heresy.  The second case can be found in the Church’s reaction to the Great Western Schism.  Ultimately, the Church did not judge any person who, with good conscience and reason, accepted the claims to the papacy of the various anti-popes.  There were cities in western Europe in which each claimant to the papacy appointed a bishop who, in turn, had clergy who was loyal to him and condemned his rivals.  The faithful had to choose and, what made things more confusing, they had to choose between priests, bishops, and popes who were all teaching essentially sound Catholic doctrine.  When the crisis was finally resolved, the Church did not condemn the faithful who ended up on “the wrong side” and even canonized as saints men who actively supported an anti-pope.  The main difference between then and now is that today the usurpers are generally teaching heresy:  religious indifferentism, religious liberty, universal salvation, pantheism, etc.

The problem with the idea that no one can judge the current situation is that it requires the faithful to resort to a legal positivism and ignore what is plainly obvious to all—the fruits of the doctrinal and liturgical revolution and the fact that the present claimant to the papal throne once noted that Vatican II represents the 1789 of the Church and is a counter-Syllabus.  What, pray tell, is counter to a Syllabus of Errors?  If the consistent teaching of popes, bishops, and theologians prior to Vatican II were wrong, why should we believe the consistent teaching of popes, bishops, and theologians since Vatican II?  Sedevacantists are constantly accused of “picking and choosing” what doctrines to follow, yet I contend that sedevacantists are generally faithful to Catholic doctrines that have been consistently and traditionally taught for centuries.  It seems to me that the people who “pick and choose” what to follow are Conciliar Catholics and traditional Catholics who accept Benedict XVI as pope.  Again, it is legal sophistry that suggests that the traditional Mass was not, for all intents and purposes, outlawed in the Conciliar Church in the 1970s.  The only reason it has continued to this day is through the clear (and admitted) disobedience to Paul VI and John Paul II by a great many traditional priests and bishops, including Archbishop Lefebvre.  Just as the Conciliar Church conceded to disobedience by allowing Communion in the hand and altar girls, the Conciliar Church has conceded to disobedience by declaring that the traditional Mass really is acceptable—all the while intending to use this greater acquiescence to help move traditional Catholics closer to the Conciliar religion, though this intention may be is backfiring.  Only time will tell.
*
Clearly, sedevacantism is not a dogma of the faith.  It is merely a point of fact.  The Chair of Peter is either legitimately occupied by a Catholic prelate or it is not.  I will point out again that there are some sedevacantists who consider any person who is not a sedevacantist outside the Church, but that itself is a schismatic attitude and they forget that there truly are just reasons for someone to have not come to the conclusion that the Holy See is occupied by a usurper.  Just as the existence of the Vatican City-State is not a dogma of the Church—remember that there was a time in Church history that the Vatican Hill was merely a cemetery and not a political entity—there are times when the See of Peter is vacant.  Since the man commonly held to be the pope has been condemned of heresy (by many Catholics before his election) he cannot be considered a legitimate pope today.  This idea is not dogma or even doctrine.  It merely is what is.  
*
Church history shows that a great number of “less-than-saintly” popes have occupied the Holy See.  Once again, a question is asked that has no real relevance to the issue of sedevacantism.  Any faithful history of the Church will be straightforward about those popes, especially those in Medieval times, who made the Vatican a veritable brothel.  Concubines, illegitimate children, Simony, wars of conquest, and all manner of moral depravity has found a place in Rome under the tutelage of the pope.  All mortal sins, however, are not equal.  While ignoring moral precepts with impunity, how many of these popes proposed heretical doctrines to the universal Church for belief or freely participated in Pagan worship?  If any did, their actions were certainly not notorious as their actions were unknown to almost everyone at the time and are completely unknown today.  On the other hand, the last two commonly accepted popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI) have indeed declared heretical beliefs and have freely participated in worship of false gods with adherents of false religions.  Their actions are notorious because they have proudly publicized their apostasy going so far as to have their exploits broadcast worldwide on television and published in their own newspaper and website.  I am indeed familiar with Church history.
*
Once again, I must quote the question asked:  “How do you reconcile the notion that, in your estimation, the Catholic Church hasn’t provided us laymen with any means of dealing with this crisis?  No Epikeia, no ability to disobey a lawful pope, no supplied jurisdiction, etc.”  I believe that if one has carefully read this essay to this point he would instantly see that this question has already been answered.  The Church has indeed provided us laymen with a means, through precedent, of dealing with the crisis.  Additional examples of how the Church teaches us to deal with the crisis include Elizabethan England, Roman persecutions, and underground Churches in communist countries.  I remind the reader that I am not even attempting to prove anything, for to prove a thesis requires evidence and sources, both theological and historical.  On the other hand, I do claim that anyone who is casually familiar with history can see the parallels, at least remotely, if he just considers the matter; and if he still cannot see any comparison it is because he refuses to see.  Finally, I don’t know how one has the right to disobey a lawful pope in matters of faith and morals or in liturgical matters though I do accept the concept of supplied jurisdiction, as do many, if not most, sedevacantists, so I am not sure why this has been asked.
*
I have attended Masses at five chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X.  I have found their Masses to be the very same Mass found in all the old Missals.  The priests’ preaching have been exemplary.  The independent chapel to which I belong is currently considering whether to align itself with the SSPX  and I have publicly stated that I have no intention of withdrawing from the chapel should the Society be invited to the chapel.  I do not consider the Society of Saint Pius X to be the enemy, unless they were to abandon everything they say they stand for and, like Bishop Rifan of Campos, Brazil, concelebrate just one Novus Ordo as a sign of “unity” with the Conciliar religion.  I just don’t know where they are going but I hope to learn something of the future at the Society’s conference in October in Kansas City.

I do not really personally know many priests.  I live quite distant from the church at which I and my family attend Mass.  Of the few I know, or with whom I have personal knowledge and experience, I do indeed know some who are very holy.  Though I don’t personally know any Society priests, I am sure that many of them are holy priests as well.  Sedevacantism or the lack thereof does not indicate holiness.  One does not determine the holiness of an individual based on matters unrelated to his faith and actions.  Saint Vincent was a holy priest even though he recognized an anti-pope as the legitimate pope.  Saint John Fisher was a holy bishop who refused to recognize the claims of the English King over the Church.

One holy bishop whom I believe will one day be canonized as a saint is Archbishop Lefebvre.  I also think that some of the Thuc-line bishops may eventually be raised to the altar because the Church will have been preserved and perpetuated through their efforts.  On the other hand, those who have declared themselves popes or who anathematize anyone who does not follow them and them alone I cannot consider holy or saintly.  There is an attitude that I find particularly troubling and that attitude can be found in some sedevacantists and also in some non-sedevacantists.  That attitude is that they, and they alone, represent the true Church and outside that group there is no salvation.  Officially, the Society does not, in any way, present that teaching.  Where I seem to find it is in some of the laity who frequent Society chapels.  I am not sure why some of the faithful seem to have this point of view as I have not seen it displayed by the Society bishops or priests, but some certainly do exhibit it.  It is too bad that all of the Society faithful did not follow the Society’s founder a little more closely in understanding that that crisis in the Church is not quite as cut and dry as today’s lay theologians would have it believed.

On a side note, I find it interesting that the Conciliar Church specifically denies that outside its communion there is no salvation.  Conservatives and anti-sedevacantists, meanwhile, cling to the doctrine and insist that the Conciliar Church really does teach that outside its communion salvation is impossible by appealing to Catholic doctrines uttered before the Conciliar Church usurped the real estate and titles of Catholicism.  Then, even on those occasions when “officialdom” declares them in schism, they simply insist that it is not so and seek “official” status and decrees that they are not any longer in schism until, in a truly ecuмenical spirit, the Conciliar Church welcomes them “home”.
*
For the most part, I am not personally enthusiastic about the “Rome-approved” traditional Mass societies such as, for example, the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, diocesan approved indults, etc.  Of course, we tend to forget that these “approved” Masses no longer use the 1962 Missal since the Missal was recently changed by Benedict XVI to completely re-write one of the oldest and most traditional prayers of the Roman Rite:  The Good Friday prayer for the Jews.  We should now be referring to the 2008 Missal, which, I understand, the SSPX does not use.  I am not enthusiastic about them because they tend to trap souls within the Conciliar structures.  Every person I know who attends Mass at the archdiocesan approved traditional Mass parish (there are some infrequent traditional Masses offered by various priests by the authority of the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificuм, but there has been no “explosion” of traditional Masses offered around me) has a very skewed view of the Faith.  They place “obedience” on a pedestal and consider it more important than the faith itself saying that they can filter out heresy for themselves and their children and they can reconcile differences in the faith they and their children see in the traditional Mass community and the Novus Ordo community around them.

On the other hand, I can see the time when I was at that same point in my “faith journey”, to borrow one of those favorite Modernist terms.  If it hadn’t been for the indult Mass, it would have taken me much longer to find tradition.  I believe I would have still found tradition since it was the Rosary and the “Luminous Mysteries” that was the impetus in my search for Truth, but it was the indult Mass that gave me familiarity with a Rite I had never before experienced while, at the same time, being so familiarly in conformity with the “new” books written so long ago that I was reading to finally learn something about the Catholic Faith.  Any person who continually seeks the Lord will not stop in the indult communities because he must, in the end, compromise the faith on some fine point at some time when the Conciliar authorities decide to speak.

Another problem I have with the indult communities is the question of Orders.  Father Pulvermacher, who used to edit The Angelus Magazine for the Society of Saint Pius X famously used to say that the Conciliar Church would free the traditional Mass only when there were no more priests left to offer it.  Archbishop Lefebvre, at one time, questioned the validity of the new Rites of Ordination of priests and Consecration of bishops.  And frankly, if he were ever convinced of these new rites’ intrinsic validity he would not have consecrated four bishops for the Society.  I am not convinced that the new rites are invalid, but I have doubts and I will not visit a priest for the administration of the sacraments if I have doubts about his Orders.  The Society seems to be of two minds on the matter.  I have read both defenses of the new rites in The Angelus as well as calls for the conditional ordination of any priest ordained in the new rite or by a bishop consecrated in the new rite if he wishes to offer Masses for the Society.  The current “policy” seems to be that the Society will conditionally ordain a priests who wishes it but does not conditionally ordain priests who do not.  This seems to be another aspect of the “pick and choose” mentality that is prevalent amongst anti-sedevacantists.
*
Which edition of the Missal does my ideal priest use?  Frankly, I am not really that concerned.  I use the SSPX hand-Missal to follow the Mass in English though I have crossed out the change in the Canon.  The chapel I usually attend currently uses the pre-1962 Missal with the in Bugnini-inspired changes in Holy Week.  Another chapel I attend uses the Missal in effect before the Holy Week changes.  If my chapel becomes affiliated with the SSPX, I understand the chapel will have to use the 1962 Missal (but thankfully not the 2008 Missal).  Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with a priest who wanted to use the Missal that was in effect in 1600.  I don’t think most sedevacantists are truly that concerned though many reject all things Bugnini, which is completely understandable and hardly makes one a non-Catholic.  What I don’t understand is why the SSPX, if they truly believe Benedict XVI is the pope, do not use the 2008 Missal in obedience to the Holy Father since this is still the traditional Missal with the traditional rubrics—with just one tiny, little difference.
*
I do not know how may true priests, bishops, or cardinals exist.  I believe the Thuc-line bishops are valid bishops and many of them, along with the Society bishops, are perpetuating the True Faith.  Unfortunately, some of these traditional bishops have fallen into schism by refusing communion with faithful Catholics who do not share their doctrines (such as those concerning Baptism of Desire), in some cases, or their understanding of the facts—such as whether or not the See of Peter is vacant.
*
I have attended and will gladly attend Masses offered by priests of the SSPX, the CMRI, the SSPV, and by independent priests.  While I do not make a thorough investigation into the validity of Orders of each and every priest, I do make a cursory examination to ensure that I can be reasonably assured of the priest’s valid orders.  When I visit a chapel where I am not known, I do not demand the right to receive Holy Communion until I have discussed the issue in the chapel and understand the chapel’s policy.  I think this answer also answers all of the questions concerning the “home-alone” Catholics.  I do not understand their thought process but I also do not consider them to be, by that criterion alone, to be non-Catholics.
*
It is interesting that the issue of fraudulent independent priests should come up since the Conciliar Church recently had a well-publicized case in Germany in which a man who had some seminary training but was never ordained was arrested for impersonating a priest and had fooled at least one diocese with forged docuмents.  He had been saying Mass (Novus Ordo), hearing confessions, and acting as an assistant pastor in a parish when he was discovered.  In any event, I am aware that there are frauds out there though I think most of the frauds are in the Conciliar establishment.  This is the nature of the crisis.
*
Once again, I am compelled to quote the question:  “Do you realize that some independent priests are simply weak in the virtue of obedience?  That is, while professing to be ‘fighting for the truth’ and all, they merely couldn’t follow orders in the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, etc. and left so they could ‘be their own boss’?”  This sounds like calumny against a whole class of priests rather than a genuine inquiry.  While I will admit that it is possible that there exists independent priests who might be described in this way, I would like to know how the questioner knows there are priests who are simply disobedient and egotistical men.  Actually, I can think of a few independent priests who may fit this description based solely on news reports I have read.  But I would say that the description of “some independent priests” is pretty much the standard description of most Conciliar priests and bishops who have made disobedience to the law, liturgy, morals, and superiors the rule rather than the exception, and none of them are sedevacantists.
*
I do believe the Modernist Crisis will be resolved one day.  When that will be is unknown.  Hopefully, the crisis will end before the end of the world.  The possibility does exist that the end of the crisis will be at the second coming of Jesus Christ and the Final Judgment.  I, for one, do not pray for this to come soon as I want as much time as possible to try to adequately repent of my sins.  There are many theories about how the Church can have a new pope, but the bottom line is that the pope is the Bishop of Rome.  Once we know we have a Catholic Bishop of Rome, we will have a pope.

I also realize, unlike some sedevacantists, conservative Catholics, and even flaming liberals, that the pope cannot simply wave is arm and restore the Church to her former glory.  It will take time and during that interim we may have a true pope who is not recognized as such by many people.  When we have a true pope, I believe—and this is my personal belief alone—that pope will recognize the fact that the validity of the new Rites of Orders was questioned almost immediately upon their promulgation.  In fact, Archbishop Lefebvre believed for a time that the new Rite of Consecration of a bishop was most certainly invalid while the new Rite of Ordination of a priest was questionable.  The pope will establish a commission to study those Rites and that commission will either present a compelling logical argument (one that has not yet truly been made) that the new Rites are certainly and intrinsically valid or will recommend that all Catholic bishops be conditionally consecrated by traditional bishops and all priests be, in turn, conditionally ordained.  This will remove all doubts in the minds of the faithful that the Orders of the priests and bishops may not be valid.

Over time, the new rites for the other sacraments will be slowly abrogated and the use of Latin will be prescribed for them.  While the pope will not immediately suppress the Novus Ordo he will not use it and his example will inspire priests and bishops throughout the world and that new rite will gradually fall into disuse until such time it is so rare that it is virtually unknown in the world.

The first evidence, however, that we have a valid pope will come in the first weeks and months of his pontificate when he uses his writings, sermons, and speeches to promote traditional Catholic teaching, condemn error, and—most especially—call for Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, and Pagans to be converted to the Catholic Faith so that they can be saved.  He will eschew the new ecuмenism and will call upon countries to restore Christ to their lands to the exclusion of false and malicious religions.  And he will be hated for it.

Of course, the crisis may be resolved some other way.  Everyone reading this essay knows there is a crisis; the only question is how deep the crisis really is.  One thing I am sure of is that none of this will happen until such time those priests, bishops, and theologians who are so wedded to Vatican II have died off.  As long as they remain in the Conciliar Structures of the Church, they will nurture their offspring and keep it safe from God.
*
The problem remains, what can a person, be he priest, religious, or layman, do toward ending the crisis.  The only thing we can do is to offer our prayers and sacrifices towards that end.  Sedevacantists do understand, I am sure, that the pope is what binds Catholics and keeps them unified.  The reason there is so much apparent disunity in the Church, both in the Conciliar Church and in various traditional enclaves, is that there is no binding force currently present.  The Church has the priests and bishops she deserves and because so many in the Church have fallen so far from God and have turned to man as the ultimate source of spirituality.  Our Lord has given the Church Modernists with only a few traditional priests and bishops to care for the few faithful Catholics who never stop seeking the Face of the Lord.

That being said, this faithful remnant cannot simply elect a pope.  As I noted above, the pope is the Bishop of Rome; he is not some one who can be elected by just anyone and have absolutely no connection with the city of Rome.  If there is no clergy of Rome who accepts a man’s claims to the papacy, he can certainly not be the pope.
*
There is little, if any real faith, in the average Novus Ordo attending Catholic.  I know because I was one of them.  They have not been taught the Catholic Faith.  They are taught, and they believe, that it really doesn’t matter what religion one is, as long as one is faithful to that religion.  Recall Mother Theresa’s famous quip that it doesn’t matter if one is a Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu as long as he is a good Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu, or something like that.  I recall comments from fellow parishioners complaining about priests who don’t offer “the wine” for communion because “when you only get the bread it feels like you’ve only been to half a Mass.”  Then there are all the mixed marriages where the family goes to the (Conciliar) Catholic parish one week and to the Baptist (or ####ian, or Methodist, etc.) church the next and the kids are taught that they will have to make their own choice about religion when they grow up only to lament that the kids don’t seem interested in any religion!  The truth be told, the average Evangelical Protestant is closer to the Catholic Faith than the average Novus Ordo attending Catholic.

There can be found, however, True Faith even there though it is rare and in constant danger.  Sometimes the Faith can be found among Conciliar priests who, for one reason or another, never quite take the step to tradition.  These priests are usually found in those thriving parishes where heresy (other than the fiction that Christ’s Blood was shed for “you and for all”) is not preached.  Of course, these are also the priests who never stay in one place very long before someone complains to the chancery that the priest is just “too exclusive” or “too rigid” and he finds himself transferred to another parish where he must take years to rebuild the faith amongst the few people who are willing to listen while the faith is undermined in his prior parish by the new priest in a matter of a few short weeks or months.  I hear these same complaints from non-sedevacantist, conservative Catholics.

I think, also, that I have already clearly and unmistakably answered all the questions concerning my thoughts about the various “factions” within the sedevacantist and non-sedevacantist traditional communities.  Catholics, no matter what they have discerned concerning the identity of the pope should be accepted as fellow Catholics and should not be excommunicated or treated as one would treat the publican and the Pagans.  In return, others should treat me with the same compassion and, if they truly believe I am wrong, refute, with evidence, that what I plainly see with my eyes and hear with my ears is not what really is.  Wasn’t it Saint Augustine who noted that charity covers a multitude of sins?

I think it now opportune to discuss the Society of Saint Pius X directly since Bishop Williamson is specifically mentioned as one of many priests and bishops who “seem to be fearless in their defense of the Faith, though are not sedevacantist.”  The Society actually puzzles me in this regard.  When writing about the “doctrinal discussions” between the Society and Rome, Bishop Williamson and others of the Society always emphasize that they are not “negotiating” and have no intention of changing their views in order to come to some agreement and be granted some sort of official “status”, but that the purpose of the discussions is to “convert Rome.”  I have read these exact words numerous times.  My question then is simply, to what does Rome need to be converted if Rome is Catholic?  It does no good to say, “to tradition” for tradition is not a faith, it is the expression of a faith.  For this reason, I have believed that the Society actually is sedevacantist in a way though they absolutely refuse to apply the term to themselves.  I have never seen an adequate explanation of this other than Benedict XVI (and before him John Paul II) are true popes who can exercise true papal authority but the Society is exempt from obeying the pope when the Society judges that authority has been misused or is not in accordance with the Tradition.  While I will grant that, as the current crisis is unprecedented, this might just be the correct answer (in which case the Society holds to a practical sedevacantism) and they should be much less critical of those who willingly accept the label.

The way the Society and other anti-sedevacantist traditional Catholics who are in “irregular situations” speak of Rome, that is, they both publicly declare the authority of the claimant to the papal throne and publicly declare that the claimant to the papal throne may be disobeyed, reminds me of when Christ was asked about John’s baptism.  The pope’s authority, they are asked, does is come from God or from men.  It seems that they say within themselves, if we say from God, we will be asked why we don’t obey him.  If we say from men we will then be asked how he can be thought to be a true pope.  
*
Christ does not call upon any one to hate others.  We should not actually hate the claimant to the papal throne nor his cardinals, bishops, and priests.  We should not hate Modernists or other heretics nor should we hate Catholics who have not reached the same conclusions on the facts that we have.  Catholics should actively pray for Benedict XVI, for his conversion to the Catholic Faith and his protection from the evil one.  In old Catholic prayer books I’ve noticed many prayers for the pope.  The prayers were for their protection against heresy, evil influences, strength to rule, etc.  I’ve even seen a prayer card that was produced in the early 1960s asking God for the success of the upcoming Vatican Council.  I sometimes wonder if Catholics just became complaisant, assuming that whatever the pope did would be great and wonderful.  How many Catholics prayed for the success of the second Vatican Council?  How many Catholics actually prayed for the pope and how many pray for Benedict XVI?  I suspect the prayers that went to heaven in the early 20th Century were few and I doubt many more are uttered by self-professed Catholics today.  Catholics seem to have an unshakable belief that the leaders of the Church can do no wrong and are dismayed when that belief is proven over and over again to be unfounded.
*
What follows is a series of questions seeking, I think, short and concise answers about a sedevacantist’s personal opinions in a variety of unrelated but contentious issues.  I will therefore answer them in short complete bullet sentences.  Again these are my own opinions; I do not answer for others nor am I fully explaining my answers.  This is simply what I think and I believe these to be acceptable positions for faithful Catholics to believe:

•   The current law of the western Church forbids a married clergy.  There is no tradition in the Church, Eastern or Western, to allow for ministers, once ordained, to marry at all.  I do not think that Church can grant priests the right to marry.

•   I believe Fatima was an authentic apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

•   I don’t know enough about Padre Pio to form an opinion other than that he was a holy man and is likely a saint in heaven.

•   I believe Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire (neither of which are sedevacantist issues) are doctrines of the Catholic Church though not as they are almost always taught so as to include nearly every human that has ever lived and ever will live.

•   Mutually agreed upon abstinence in marriage is not a sin.

•   The “separation of Church and State” is something that the Church must tolerate in Pagan lands but it is not the ideal state and is not what the Catholic Church teaches as God’s will; though John Paul II and Benedict XVI clearly teach that it is doctrinally required.

•   Saint Thomas Aquinas was a great theologian and his teachings and method of logical reasoning is one of the foundations of the Church’s theology.

•   Limbo is a theological possibility, the “outskirts of hell”, if you will, where the unbaptized who have no personal sin will reside for eternity.  Unbaptized babies cannot go to heaven.  This is the de fide teaching of the Church.

•   The United States of America is the greatest country currently in the world, though we are falling fast.  Though it was not founded on Catholic principles, it’s constitution (if only we followed it) was about as close as it could be without this nation actually being a Catholic nation.

•   The Jews must be converted to the Catholic Faith or suffer eternally in hell.  I do not subscribe to the theory that every evil in the world is a Jєωιѕн conspiracy though it is curious that secular Jews do figure prominently in many of the evils of today.

•   The United States of America circa 1940 was a better and safer place than the America of today.  Unfortunately, the Church in the 1940s clearly did not take the warnings of Pope Saint Pius X seriously.

•   At Vatican II commands and directives were certainly issued.  Many statements were asserted that give the appearance of doctrinal teaching, but I know of nothing that the Council actually does teach.  On the other hand, the priests, bishops, and theologians who have worked to put the directives of the Council into effect have certainly taught many things that they say presents the teaching of the Council and binds their followers, so much so that 75% of the non-scriptural footnotes in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church are references to Vatican II docuмents.  Virtually nothing that emanated from the Council is truly Catholic, thus no Catholic is bound by it.

•   I do indeed acknowledge that the Catholic Church normally has a pope and that Catholics must, not just normally but at all times, docilely submit to the teachings and liturgical requirements of the pope or be in schism.  

The questions continue:  “With the foregoing statement in mind, do you realize that Sedevacantism is a positive (in the sense that you’re doing something) action, not a neutral one or a lack of action? That is, an SSPX Traditionalist isn’t ‘making a choice’ in the same way you’re ‘making a choice’.”  Indeed.  The sedevacantist makes one choice:  To face the facts and accept the deplorable situation that there is no pope at this time; the Church is experiencing an extended interregnum.  Yes, indeed.  The SSPX traditional Catholic, on the other hand is likewise not making a “neutral choice.”  He is making positive choices in determining which commands and teachings of his pope he is going to obey and which commands and teachings of his pope he is going to disregard.  I have made one choice.  The anti-sedevacantist traditional Catholic has to make many choices nearly every time the pope speaks and every time a docuмent is issued from the Vatican.  And, of course, the average Novus Ordo Catholic just does and believes as he wishes, remaining intentionally ignorant of Catholic doctrines.
*
God has not abandoned His people or His Church.  His people have abandoned Him.  His Church continues even though she is much smaller than she was in the past.  We are, however, in a much better position than the Catholics of Japan were for generations and we are in a much more comfortable position that the Catholics were in ancient Rome or are in Red China or Muslim and Hindu countries.  We are not hunted down and beaten and murdered as Arians (who, by the way, considered themselves the “true” Catholics in their day) did to Catholics who refused communion with Arian bishops.  True Catholics in that era oftentimes held priestless, worship services at local cemeteries.  Faithful Catholics today do indeed have the means of salvation.
*
I do have a family.  I have a wife and five children.  I do not stay at home and our chapel is quite as large (population wise) as many SSPX chapels and larger than some chapels.  I would not object to attending an SSPX chapel though I doubt I would move as I have developed many friendships at the chapel I attend, which is, by the way, officially not a sedevacantist chapel.  The nearest SSPX chapel is at least 3 hours distant while the “small” independent Chapel at which I usually attend Mass is about 45 minutes from home.  I am not averse to driving a distance to attend Mass, and if the SSPX had a chapel in central Indiana I may very well have started going there when we escaped the Novus Ordo.  I agree that the priest mentioning Benedict’s name in the Canon is not going to damage my faith or my family’s faith.  I know a priest who is a sedevacantist though it is not generally known that he is.  The non-sedevacantists that I’ve seen attend his Masses also do not seem to have their faith damaged because the priest does not mention Benedict’s name in the Canon.

I truly believe this is because both the priests, the sedevacantist and the non-sedevacantist, are good and faithful servants of God.  Both are Catholics.  Both are imperfect but both are trying to lead souls to Christ and teach the True Faith that has come down to us from the Apostles rather than the faith that has been cleared through the feminist camps and focus-group tested amongst the Protestants and infidels.
*  *  *
This answers the questions put to the sedevacantist on the forum.  While I do not speak for all sedevacantists, I dislike the term greatly, most of my comments could be echoed by not a few Catholics who either doubt or deny that Benedict XVI is truly the pope.  It is unfortunate that those who have raised their opinion to the level of dogma are the most vocal.  The rest of us are always searching for the Truth and seeking to try to live our lives in fear and trembling.  

It is likewise unfortunate that there are enclaves of sedevacantists who have become more a cult (in the negative sense of the word) and less traditional Catholic.  I hasten to add, however, that this same cultish behavior is found in many locales in Conciliarist circles including at least one FSSP parish of which I am familiar.  The cult-like following is not generally found at SSPX chapels or at the CMRI chapels I have visited, though it does seem to find a place on traditional Catholic forums on the internet.

The simple faithful among traditional Catholic laymen are not evangelists trying to “convert” other Catholics to one particular “brand” of Catholicism.  The simple faithful are trying to save our souls and we do much more listening than preaching, more asking than answering, more reading than writing.  I expect there may be some replies or comments to my screed.  If what I have seen on other topics is a useful guide, most of the comments will either be irrelevant or designed to ridicule and berate rather than offer useful criticism.  The title of the thread is, “So You Decided To Become A Sedevacantist.”  As I noted at the beginning of this essay, I never decided upon this; the realization simply hit me.  I will listen to all who attempt to demonstrate how Benedict XVI can be pope and at the same time lead a religion that believes all religions, including the Catholic one, are simply the outward expressions of the religious experience that wells up inside each of us.  The Catholic religion is not simply one of many “faith traditions”; it is not a synthesis resulting from a clash between thesis and antithesis (which becomes the new thesis which will conflict with its antithesis, and so on); it is not one truth among many or one way to God amongst countless ways.  I will not entertain such notions.  

Likely, I will remain silent if anyone comments.  Please do not take my silence as consent.

Hi Matthew,

I am happy to answer your questions.  Sedevacantism, when properly understood is logical, consistent and is thoroughly Catholic.  As there are so many questions I will answer them in several posts.

* Does the Catholic Church have a pope right now?
* For how long has the commonly-held pope (in Rome) not been the real pope

1.  No, the Catholic Church most certainly does not have a Pope.  This can be proved in two ways.  The antipopes are public heretics, as they are public heretics, they have lost their membership in the Church, and with that any office that they held.

2.  Pope Pius XII was a certain Pope.  The trouble begins during the time of John XXIII, but, I do not believe a strong case can be made against him.  He was not a public heretic.  Paul VI taught public heresy to the Church on December 7, 1965.  I believe this date is a certain line in the sand.  Whether or not Paul VI was a Pope or not prior to that point, he could not have been a pope from that day forward.  

To answer your question, a future Pope may determine the date of sedevacante, we need only be concerned with what we can determine with moral certainty.  We need not go beyond that.

We can have moral certainty that these claimants are not Popes, as they have taught public heresy, they have taught grave errors against the Faith, they have given evil universal laws, they have promulgated evil and impious sacramental rites.   If they were Popes, the Church would have defected.  The Church would lack Apostolicity in its Doctrine.  The Church would also no longer be the guarantor of the Apostolic Succession, as Paul VI promulgated a doubtful rite.  The Church would no longer be holy as its sacramental rites and laws have allowed evil and impiety.