https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-sedevacantist-saint-vincent-ferrer/

http://strobertbellarmine.net/schism.html

After years of defending the Avignon papacy, St. Vincent Ferrer became a sedevacantist officially on the Feast of the Epiphany, 1416 A.D., at the Castle of Majorca.

Using private judgment, St. Vincent Ferrer denounced his friend Pope Benedict XIII for going into schism because he wouldn’t step down with the other papal claimants in order that the Church could be unified under one pope.

The great miracle worker had many followers and when St. Vincent Ferrer declared the Chair of Peter empty, nearly the whole Catholic world pulled away their allegiance to all papal claimants making way for Pope Martin V.


"You like Apples?"  

https://crownofmartyrs.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/from-a-biography-of-st-vincent-ferrer/

This is from a biography of St Vincent Ferrer and makes it clear that what he was proposing to Benedict XIII was a condition where he would either resign for the good of the Church or depose himself through schism.

Indeed, which Saint would ever refuse obedience to a pope they considered legitimate?

https://crownofmartyrs.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/from-a-biography-of-st-vincent-ferrer/

This is from a biography of St Vincent Ferrer and makes it clear that what he was proposing to Benedict XIII was a condition where he would either resign for the good of the Church or depose himself through schism.

Indeed, which Saint would ever refuse obedience to a pope they considered legitimate?

I am not satisfied with this. I don't think anyone should be. There must be some words by St. Vincent somewhere. This short and obscure biography was written by a Catholic playwright, not someone who is careful with canonical language. Take a look at how he used "treason":

Upon Vincent himself would be the guilt of the Schism if he did not use all the means in his power to bring it to an end — even if it meant treason and rebellion against his sovereign and benefactor. Furthermore, his reason, which never failed him, saw clearly that if Benedict resisted, he would be deposing himself.

It sounds like the author is either suggesting the Saint was willing to sin, or that other people might think he was being treasonous. It could be the latter, but why would anyone think it treasonous if he explained the man was no longer pope? It looks to me like it is just a very loose and flowery way of making the narrative exciting without intending precise wording.

Further, in this quote, it says, "deposing himself", but nobody does such a thing to himself, others do. People actually resign instead, so it is again very loose and sloppy use of words.

Then the narrative mentions, "Benedict XIII was deposed". I cannot believe the author really knows the terminology, but lets assume he does mean that word correctly, it can still legitimately apply to a case where a man who is not a true pope is deprived of what he wrongfully possesses.

I would like to see wording from St. Vincent, or at least some scholarly source making it clear St. Vincent believe Benedict was a true pope who ipso facto ceased to be pope through schism.

Pls show where St Vincent Ferrer uses the word 'sedevacantist'...  :ready-to-eat:

Maybe he just said the see is vacant…

So far there has been no actual evidence presented that St Vincent Ferrer used the words sedevacantist and/or sedevacantism...  

The claim from Gregory is that he 'became a sedevacantist Officially'.

 :detective:

It has nothing really to do with those terms. It has to do with concepts. As long as he said there was no true pope existing after falling into heresy or schism, it is the same as being a sedevacantist. If you get hung up on terminology you will be liable to claim nobody believed in transubstantiation before they started to use the word.

Pls show evidence that St Vincent said 'there is no true Pope'...  :ready-to-eat:

Often we hear about St. Vincent et al. supporting one pope (Clement VII, Avignon pope) and St. Catherine of Siena et al. supporting another (Urban VI, Roman pope), both elected in 1378 (cf. this table). But St. Vincent's sedevacantist period began in 1416, when he disavowed himself of his friend Cdl. Pedro de Luna, elected Benedict XIII in 1394, of whom the saint was his confessor.

Some references:

St. Vincent wrote his Tractatus de moderno ecclesie scismate in 1380. The most recent biography of the saint, Daileader's Saint Vincent Ferrer, His World and Life: Religion and Society in Late Medieval Europe (2016), describes the Tractatus on p. 22:

Vincent asked first whether, in a time of schism, it was necessary to accept a single true pope or whether one could accept both or neither. Having established in his response to the first question that one must accept either Urban or Clement as pope, Vincent then posed the second question, namely, which of the two men elected by the College of Cardinals was the true pope. Having established that Clement’s election alone was valid, Vincent then asked whether this truth had to be preached and revealed to the Christian people. To each of these three major questions, the friar assigned five additional questions. Vincent answered all 15 questions within a scholastic framework: he posed his answer; cited his rational arguments (rationes) and his authorities (chiefly Aquinas, named on several occasions, and the Bible, with some references to Augustine and Aristotle); raised objections to his own arguments; and then rebutted the objections.

Ch. 9 ¶¶21-23 of Andrew Pradel, O.P.'s 1863 St. Vincent Ferrer: Angel of the Judgment explains why St. Vincent can be considered a sedevacantist:

…the King of Aragon detached himself from his obedience to Benedict XIII, and from that moment the cause of the union was accomplished.

The King’s edict was published on the 6th of January, 1416.

Our Saint spent the beginning of the year in traveling through many provinces of Aragon to withdraw the people from obedience to Benedict XIII, and to attach them to that of the Council of Constance, an undertaking by no means easy considering the long period in which those countries had lived under the spiritual dominion of Peter de Luna. But to all their prejudices the Saint opposed solid reasons, which carried conviction to every mind. In a short time, Spain, as well as Italy and the rest of Christendom, awaited with submission the choice of the Council of Constance, ready to acknowledge the elect of the Council as the veritable Vicar of Jesus Christ.

But St. Vincent refused to attend the Council of Constance and disagreed with its outcome (cf. Daileader pp. 168-76)! Thus, the great saintly logician just kept preaching repentance! This is certainly a great lesson for us today.

Happy octave day of St. Vincent's feast! :)

The lesson we learn is that in a dilemma where Christendom is divided and confused about who the true pope is (for legal reasons, not heresy), the true pope MUST resign in favor of unity for the Church to have another election. If the true pope (whoever he is) refuses, then by that very fact of schism, automatically ceases to be true pope anyway, precisely for his schism.

How is it that I had gathered that St. Vincent Ferrer accepted the Council of Constance? Why would he also preach against Pedro de Luna for the Council if he was against it?

There is a quote (I don't have at the moment) that show St. Vincent considered the pope whom he was always promoting, to have become a non-pope because of schism because he refused to participate in all the claimants resigning for the sake of another sure election.