Recognizing Christ in His Church at this point in history is very much akin to recognizing Him while on the Cross - the good thief (St. Dismas) did so, to his eternal joy; the bad thief failed to do so, to his eternal misery.

The servant is no better than his Master, and our Master was brutalized beyond recognition, dying the ignominious death of the Cross - for you, and for me.  It is sensible then that His Spouse, the Church, ought to be taken to the brink, beyond what men can even endure or comprehend - in a word, that She should, to all appearances, die.

When Saint Pius X was dying, Cardinal de Lai said that the Church was over, humanly speaking.

Just as we do not know how God re-united Christ's body and soul, we do not know how the Church will recover from her present state - but we do know that she will, for she is, like her Master, divine.

There are some good ideas out there, from people of all 'positions', but none of them knows how it will actually occur - only God does.  Oddly, the SSPX and sede-vacantists are really taking the stances they do based upon the same principle - the indefectibility of Holy Church.  However, as they are looking at it from two different angles, if you will, the answers they come up with vary significantly.

Faith is a gift, and is easily obtained by those who ask for it.  God is not a miser, as we are.  He wants to spread His goodness as far and as wide as possible - but in a human soul, He will never force it.  The Divine Guest must be welcomed inside, and there He will prepare such a feast that we can only sit there awestruck.  Ask Him to help you, for His help is the only kind that actually accomplishes anything, even in 'normal' times (whatever those are, if they even exist).  God speed.  Please pray for me.

I had to come on and respond to this.  Since this is, or should be, the central issue in all Catholic lives, I am greatly surprised that others aren't all over it.  You know Jesus made mention of this, too, when He asked if there would be any faith when he returned.  That does not indicate that He expected to find a flourishing and visible Church.  

I don't think I've made any secret of how difficult it has been for me to come to terms with the defection of the Vatican, and I'm sure others have had their struggle, too.  I had no peace with it until our bishop said something which said to me, "Ignore the Vatican since Pius XII died."  Ever since then it has been simple for me.  The visible Church died with Pius XII, and has no bearing on anything.  

I wonder, though, how it can escape anyone's notice, that the Vatican has aborted its mission, and now has gone so far as to turn even nominal catholics toward judaism.  At this point it has be apparent to the densest that loyalty to such blatant wolves is 100% misplaced.  It is simply not possible to be loyal to Christ and loyal to the Vatican anymore.

Since this is, or should be, the central issue in all Catholic lives, I am greatly surprised that others aren't all over it.

This topic - 'Where is the Church?', if you will - is the big (and smelly) elephant in most peoples' living rooms.

To identify the highly-visible, V2 church with the Immaculate Spouse of Christ is problematic, for it is to join in one body two religions that are antithetical to each other (thus ruining things completely).  Iow, the V2 church is visible, to be sure, but it does not profess and/or teach the Faith of the Apostles.

However, the alternative leaves most people - understandably - rather uncomfortable, too.  The final analysis; mystery is acceptable, contradiction is not.

The key word is SEEMS, not is.

I AGREE with you, O mighty genius.  

If I thought it should be "IS" - being the diabolical liar that you take me to be - I would have changed the word.  I did not.  The rest will have to wait.

How do you explain Vatican I's anathema attached to a dogma saying that the successors of St. Peter are PERPETUAL, considering of course that there have not been very long interregna?

You never answered the questions I proposed. I wonder why? I already know the answer: there is no answer. Don't twist this on me. You made a proposition, I said it's wrong based on doctrine, dogma, and common sense.

To snidely say that at the death of the Pope there is no pope hence the statement is invalid is sophomoric and down-right deceptive. No one judges the stability of an institution by the exceptions. Sedes do this in order to justify the unjustifiable.

When I said no theologian it pertains to the major theologians, not anyone with a doctorate in theology. There are major and minor theologians in the Church, and if you want to be perfectly concise there are no major theologians who believe in a Church without an existing Magisterium or head of the Church.

After reading Fr. Stépanich I see the same error of thought, namely to judge the exception to the rule. While there is no specific ordinance saying how long it will be until there is another pope until the election of a new one, there already has been elections which throws the diabolical machinations of this priest and likewise yourself. St. Alphonsus even goes so far as to say that when a pontiff is given status as Pope to the world he already has that authority. While that's not Magisterial, it's a lot better than quoting saints noted for their piety, not because they are a doctor of the Church.

Until you answer those question using Magisterial sources, not proof-texted quotes twisted diabolically out of place, there is no room for discussion.

There is no Church that fits your billing and your vision. NADA, ZILCH, ZIPPO. Your contempt of me answering your obvious question proposed shouldn't get your panties in a wad.

You made the statement about your vision of the Church. It's up to YOU to explain how a Church exists (not my version, yours) without a Magisterium, cardinals to elect another succesor, and without a visible head.

You believe in the heretical branch theory, an invisible Church composed of faithful. My version coincides with history which is that there is nothing imposed on the laity in itself which we must believe which is heretical proposed as de fide dogma, and hence to resist such teachings until a future pope reverses such beliefs and potentially declares a state of sedevacante just like the cases with Formorsus, Stephen, Sergius, Honorius, etc.. Only a Pope can declare the acts and judge the office of another.