From St. Thomas's commentary on Matt. 16:18:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, etc. Here He gives the reward for his confession. For he had confessed His humanity and divinity, and, for that reason, the Lord gives him a reward. Firstly, He gives him a name; and secondly, He gives him power. About the first, to begin with, He gives him the name; and secondly, He gives the reason for the name, where it is said, And upon this rock I will build my church. And for this He came into this world, that He would found His Church. “Behold I will lay a stone in the foundations of Sion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation” (Is. 28, 16). This was signified by the stone that Jacob put under his head, and anointed, as it is stated in Genesis 28. This stone is Christ, and from this anointing all Christians are called Christians; hence, we are not only called Christians from Christ, but also from the rock.20 For that reason, He specially names him: Thou art Peter, from the rock which is Christ. Albeit, according to Augustine, it seems that this name was not given at this time, but was given at the beginning; “Thou shalt be called Cephas” (Jn. 1, 42). Or it can be said that it was then promised, and it was here given. As a sign of this, it is said, upon this rock I will build my church.21 A distinctive characteristic of a rock is that it is placed in a foundation; likewise, another characteristic of a rock is that it gives firmness. “He is likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock” (above 7, 24). Hence, it can be expounded of Christ. And upon this rock, that is, Christ, so that He may be its foundation, and having been placed as the foundation, the Church may gain firmness. Augustine, in his book of Retractions, says that this passage may be explained in multiple ways, and he left to his listeners to adopt the explanation that they prefer. For instance, this passage may be expounded such that the words this rock signify Christ; “And the rock was Christ” (I Cor. 10, 4). And elsewhere, it is written: “Another foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus” (ibid. 3, 11). There is another exposition: Upon this rock, meaning upon you who are a rock, because you yourself draw from me that you are a rock. And just as I am a rock, so upon you who are a rock I will build my Church, etc.

But what is this? Are both Christ and Peter the foundation? It must be answered that Christ, in and of Himself, is the foundation, but Peter is the foundation insofar as he confesses Christ, and insofar as he is His vicar. “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,” etc., (Eph. 2, 20). “There are twelve foundations of the city: And in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Apoc. 21, 14). Christ, in and of Himself, is the foundation; but the Apostles, not in and of themselves but through Christ’s delegation, and through the authority given them by Christ, are foundations as well; “The foundations thereof are the holy mountains” (Ps. 86, 1). But Peter’s house especially, which was founded upon the rock, shall not be demolished, as said above in chapter 7.22 Thus, this house can be assaulted, but it cannot be conquered.

Please do not try to twist the teaching of St Thomas to fit the sedevacantist agenda, just like they do with st. Bellarmine.  It is evident for all who have eyes to see (and that are actually well versed in Church history) that sedevacantism is a novelty, unheard before Vatican II. History just does not attest to it.

There is absolutely no precedence for abandoning the office of the papacy in the lives of the Saints or Church history; those who always did, it was always the first step on the gradual slope to schism and thus, Hell.

Be strong; stay with the Church of all Ages, and don't feed into the Jєωιѕн liberal mainstream press and their attempts to divide the church.

There are valid arguments for sedevacantism.  Although, I am doubtful that catholics can formally depose a pope.  But, Geremia is pointing in the right direction.  "Peter is the foundation in so far as he confesses Christ".  

As for a pro sedevacantism argument.  I will draw from scripture.  In between Peter's denial and confession, Christ called out to to the apostles in the boat who were fishing; Peter covered himself because he was naked, and placed himself "outside of the boat"(the bark of peter).  It is symbolic and a legitimate parallel to what we are experiencing now.  

However, there also is an argument for R&R practical plenism.  In between Peter's denial and confession he said "I go a fishing".  And, the other apostles said "we go with thee".  The "I" spoken by Peter is important, and the fact that the apostles went with him is important.

What scars the vacantist movement is the practice of judging validity.  That is like the fountain head.      

It is evident for all who have eyes to see (and that are actually well versed in Church history) that sedevacantism is a novelty, unheard before Vatican II. History just does not attest to it.

There is absolutely no precedence for abandoning the office of the papacy in the lives of the Saints or Church history; those who always did, it was always the first step on the gradual slope to schism and thus, Hell.

Your argument is invalid, ma'am.  At its essence, it simply states that we are not in a state of sedevacantism because we never were in such a state before Vatican II.

Vatican II, it's false ecuмenism, and it's fruits are unprecedented.  Kissing the koran, accepting pagan blessings, "worshipping" with heretics and infidels, and relegating abortion and sodomy to the level of "trivial social issues" is unprecedented.  How difficult is it to believe (or acknowledge) that the Church is in an unprecedented circuмstance...

I find myself closely affiliated with R&Rers.  I agree with them on much and do not wish to bash them about that with which I do not agree.  But logically speaking, that position is as absurd as, or more so than, sedevacantism.

I know that you are a lady, and thus, with all due respect, it would be more becoming if you only read to learn on such matters rather than endeavor to "instruct."

I don't know whether you are aware but to call SV'ism a novelty is ignorance of history.

I have pointed out quite a while ago, and so have many others, not sure if you have read it or not. If you have not, well that is fine, but here it is so that you can stop claiming such ignorance.

St. Vincent Ferrer "deposed" anti-Pope Benedict XIII for the simple fact of wanting to refuse to resign for the good of the Church. He did it in front of religious superiors, Cardinals that were appointed by the one he thought was the true Pope. St. Vincent was a prodigy genius, plus a man who was gifted with prophecy, miracles and great holiness. He was already a professor of Logic at the early age of 20's. He came about this after a serious study of tradition, months of fasting and prayer. It was then and ONLY then that he was able to do such a thing once he verified the magisterial teaching of the Church on the topic.

We have had approx. 40 something anti-Popes (not including the modern anti Popes) depending on which historian you talk to, most of them agree on all the ones with a few disputed cases. So to think that it is "a novelty" is completely dishonest at best, and plain bad will at worse. This is especially true if you have been on the internet forums for quite a bit. You can't claim that sort of ignorance that a newcomer might be able to claim who knows nothing of the faith.

Instead of making claims, no matter how long it takes you. Go and read ANY book pre-vatican II on the history of the papacy. It is precisely history which is on our side, and to make the BOLD claim that SV'ist are twisting somehow St. Robert Bellarmine shows simply how ignorant you are on the matter at hand.

St. Robert Bellarmine CLEARLY teaches that a heretical pope loses his office, St. Thomas Aquinas is in the same boat if you examine his treatises on heresy, St. Vincent clearly had the same position (if you don't believe me then actually go read his books), . Quit being intellectually lazy and actually read the material you are discussing about, instead of getting brainwashed by arguments which have already been refuted. When I went and did the reading myself, I found to my amazement that it was the SV'ist who were right. It also best fits the current crisis of the Church and the root of the problem.

The vatican II sect represents the false bride of Christ, the anti-Church. There is a long line of anti-Popes, before the final culmination of the Man of Sin, a.k.a. THE Anti-Christ. This has been the commentary of many great Saints with respect to who will the anti-Christ be? And how he will take the reigns of power, how he will be able to deceive the elect. The only man who fits the perfect description is an anti-Pope, this is why in the original D-R commentary it said this, St. Bernard says this and many other Doctors + theologians (Card. Manning says the same). It is not far-fetched, it is not "novelty" as you seem to think. It is only a novelty to those who are too stupid to read what tradition has actually said on the modern crisis. No instead you want to rely, on your emotions, and put what you conceive as God's "mercy" in a box of your own doing. Ohh if SV'ism were true, "the gates of Hell have prevailed against her" and such intellectual gobbledygook that is constantly uttered as theological arguments. Or the famous, your good Dad and bad Dad argument.

Go ahead and attend the Novus Ordo or the masses of those false priest who have been ordained in the New Rites. At the end of the day, when you die you will see that we were right from abstaining from them. Instead of disdaining the opinion of men whom the Church has actually called as authorities on these matters, you defer to your own emotions as proof. St. Bellarmine was called as Master of Controversies (he was the head of that department in the College of Rome), the same goes with St. Francis de Sales, he was known as the Master of Controversies. St. Antoninus another famous Doctor, St. Cyprian and I can keep going on all day.

No instead you cling to a few men who can't even make a coherent arguments on the topic, who would turn over their graves if they saw the position of the SSPX on the matter. The SSPX claims to be the champion of Cajetan and the 4 other theologians who are in the minority on this point. Yet, Cajetan, Suarez and company don't even agree with each other + their position is not even the same as that of the SSPX. So go ahead and keep telling yourself that everything makes sense under the SSPX theological framework. Its okay if the Church gives you demons to worship such as Wojtyla and Roncalli. Intellectually its no problem for you, because the Church as you understand it can give you poison. BUT no my dear friends, the Church is the Bride of Christ which is protected by Infallibility. Keep telling yourself that a whore can somehow with its idolatry and ecuмenism, be able to somehow be at the same time the True Church of Christ. But as for me and my SV'ist brothers we want to keep our sanity and logic in check. Non possumus, that simple.

Yes it is spiritually detrimental at this point which position you really hold. Does it make you a heretic, ipso facto. No, not necessarily but it really depends on the individual cases. If the individual defends in their mind intellectually that which is apostasy as licit, then they incur the same anathema's that the Vatican II sect has incurred, but if they resist these heresies intellectually then they keep the faith, but there are still consequences to holding these men who dress in white as true Popes. It will make all the difference who you go to confession to, where you go to mass, what laws you follow for fasting etc... Whether or not you go to actual Sunday mass or Saturday mass (Jєωιѕн worship as opposed to the concept of Catholic Sabbath worship a.k.a. Sunday).

Please do study the issues, it makes a huge difference when everyone is in the same page. Actual beneficial discussion can take place when everyone has done their reading and homework.

Then this pope is a heretic, just as you say.  Law of the Church, states that to nominate, they must be showing outwardly that they are catholic.  So, this pope, was not catholic to begin with.  He is manifest heretic.

Quote from: Cantarella

Please do not try to twist the teaching of St Thomas to fit the sedevacantist agenda, just like they do with st. Bellarmine.  It is evident for all who have eyes to see (and that are actually well versed in Church history) that sedevacantism is a novelty, unheard before Vatican II. History just does not attest to it.

There is absolutely no precedence for abandoning the office of the papacy in the lives of the Saints or Church history; those who always did, it was always the first step on the gradual slope to schism and thus, Hell.

Be strong; stay with the Church of all Ages, and don't feed into the Jєωιѕн liberal mainstream press and their attempts to divide the church.

Do you go to your local Novus Ordo Mass?

Do you use the New 90's Catechism as a sure norm of learning the Faith?

The Novus Ordo Mass is not the real problem, or the real enemy. The Novus Ordo Mass is more a symptom than a cause of Modernism. The crisis is not a matter of the liturgy but the dogma. The root of the many heterodoxies and heresies that afflict Our Holy Mother Church is the de facto contradiction operated by the dominating progressive left of the solemnly defined dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. The Modernists are conducting their campaign of practically obliterating Dogma in the exact same manner that the Arians did 1700 years ago.

By the way, it is a Catholic DOGMA that no one is in his way of salvation unless submitted to the Roman Pontiff.  

And actually, st. Bellarmine, who sedevacantists are very fond of citing, is very clear to state that a Catholic, is one who professes the Catholic Faith, who submits to legitimate Pastors, principally the Roman Pontiff, and shares in common the seven Catholic Sacraments. Whoever does not meet these requisites, it is actually outside the Church as a heretic, apostate, or schismatic.

And if there is no Roman Pontiff to submit to…?