In some cases, yes, but I don't see how you can have an orthodox view of the papacy, infallibility, indefectibility, obedience, private judgment, unity of the Church etc. if you accept that the visible Catholic Church authority structure could completely disappear and/or have no Popes for 64 years (and counting).

I have a whole list of magisterial and Scriptural quotes, including from Our Lord, that are irreconcilable with the Sedevacantist view.

So I would say that while it is possible to be Sedevacantist and subjectively orthodox, by virtue of holding contradictory views and not realizing it, it is in itself inconsistent with orthodoxy and considered objectively is heretical or schismatic.

I may be wrong, goes without saying, but there it is.

I would like to see the list.

And your parody doesn't work because you don't actually believe that there is a magical threshold where the Church defects after a certain period. 3 years? 5? 10? 12.65? 60.2?

In addition, some theologian with an imprimatur said even if during the Great Western schism there were no popes there was no problem. Cdl Manning or O'Reilly maybe.

I checked the attachment and read it until I found the first error, which is to say I stopped right after the beginning where it states: "...Our first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith..." which literally, makes no sense compared to: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith..."

Prima salus est, rectae fidei regulam custodire.

rectae, non vere



Give me a break Stubborn, you don't even check the original Latin before criticizing my more faithful translation.

Honestly, what a petty excuse.

What have they got right? That we need to oppose the modern Popes and not follow/obey them. And 99.5% of the material we share in the "Traditional" package.

Arguing about Sedevacantism is a direct result of the BISHOPS/PRIESTS dividing us -- yes, just like (((them))), they keep us divided. And yes, that's doing the devil's work.

The fact is: sedevacantists and R&R are both TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS, part of the classic TRADITIONAL MOVEMENT which started spontaneously everywhere immediately after Vatican II, and will continue until the Crisis in the Church is over. Some might lose heart, some might betray, some might defect -- but for all we know the Traditional Movement might turn out to be WHERE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS, EXCLUSIVELY during these dark years.

No investigation, no argumentation, is going to come up with the silver bullet at this point. By silver bullet, I mean "The One Ring" or the evidence/argument which will convince 100% (not just 99%) of those *of good will* over to said position.

See, the problem is that many mistake their own judgment, their own opinion, for that silver bullet. They therefore conclude that anyone disagreeing with them is either malicious (of bad will) or literally stupid. That is NOT true, however.

MY opinion is that only God can sort out this mess. My reasoning is rock-solid: we've been trying to solve this Crisis with human means for 52 years and counting. It hasn't worked. We have tried. We have had holy men, brilliant men, prudent men -- nothing has worked. The mystery is too deep; it must be similar to a Supernatural Mystery, where God has to reveal it because we'd NEVER work it out by ourselves. Like the Holy Trinity for example.

Back in the early days of CathInfo, around 2007-2009, some R&R had a nice discussion with a sedevacantist. I think it was my wife and the sedevacantist was Gladius_Veritatis. We asked him, "Say we, who are R&R, decided today to adopt Sedevacantism. Of what practical benefit would that be to us? We're not Novus Ordo; we're already doing all the same things you Sedevacantists do." All he could say was, "Well, you'd have the *truth* and that's something..."

But my point: there is no practical benefit to Sedevacantism over the plain-vanilla "Traditional Catholic movement" package. By the Traditional Catholic movement, I mean the no-compromises movement that resists modernism but is pretty basic:

1. Leave the Conciliar Church behind, shake the dust off your feet, ignore the modern Churchmen who are 99.9% presumed Modernist or tainted Modernist at this point
2. Seek out priests/bishops who will offer the traditional Mass and sacraments, who are formed in a pre-Vatican II manner (Aquinas, etc.) and will preach the pre-Vatican II, true Catholic Faith -- also who are properly ordained/consecrated.
3. No scruples about "jurisdiction" for any of the sacraments, including marriage and confession. No need to ask permission from anyone, even the Pope, to stay Catholic and/or save our soul.
4. Believe in a "Crisis in the Church" which is about the FAITH, not just the Mass.

That's it. That is what God caused to arise on earth in all places after Vatican II. Everything additional is a NOVELTY, an ACCRETION, something EXTRA. That includes all theories about the Pope. Sedes used to sit side-by-side with non-Sedes in Traditional (independent) chapels, considering the Pope question to be part of their own personal opinion only. It wasn't their identity like it is today.

But it's not just Sedes that "added" to the Traditional Movement. Indulters twisted the movement into a "Latin Mass" movement, ignoring the fact that it's a Crisis of Faith, not just the Mass. And they added "you need to be on good terms with Rome, you need to have permission, jurisdiction, etc." to the list of beliefs. That is objectively a NOVELTY, because there was no question of permission from 1970-1984 or especially 1988! What did Trads do during that period? See what I mean? Whatever is true, had to have been available AT ALL TIMES after the Crisis began, until the present day. The truth is not going to contradict itself or radically change during that time period. Either supplied jurisdiction is legitimate during a great Crisis, or it's not. If it's not, then the Catholic Faith was completely snuffed out from 1970 - 1988. NOT POSSIBLE.

And the SSPX added something as well: worship of their organization. Bishop Williamson got it right, trying to keep the SSPX humble. He compared SSPX to a fat ugly kid in a tug-of-war, the "anchor man" who holds the line, but isn't popular or pretty. He also warned seminarians in 2001 that the ONLY STRENGTH of the SSPX consisted in their uncompromised defense of the Truth, and that they could fail someday. If and when the SSPX failed, God would be fine because He didn't need them: He could raise up children to Abraham "from the very stones". But most SSPX parishioners and priests are far too proud of their organization, even putting it FIRST above the good of souls. They think they OWN the souls. They think they ARE the Church. They think the souls in their care exist for the good of the SSPX, instead of the other way around. That has been their tendency, their weakness dating back to the 80's. But it's gotten very bad in recent years. Not everyone is fully guilty, but all too many have imbibed this error to a greater or lesser degree. When you hear SSPX priests or Faithful call the Resistance "disobedient", "illegitimate", "don't attend their Masses", that's my proof right there. Come on!

Come on Matthew. It is common knowledge that there are people within different camps (SSPX, Sedes, Resistance, yes even Resistance priest and folks!) redlighting the other Masses. Trying to be fair here.

Well, Stubborn has gone on record rejecting the 19th and 20th century theologians.

Not all of them, only certain ones of the last few centuries, some of the ones who are respected and most often quoted. The ones who've led faithful Catholics to believe that their opinions as theologians are in fact de fide teachings of the Church, which in turn fuels the sedeism idea to go from a personal opinion to indisputable fact in the minds of sedes. I reject those theologians' opinions. 

Interestingly, Bishop Williamson said at 1:00:17, that the bishops "have lost their authority, because they have lost the truth"... perhaps he will apply this principle to the "Bishop" of Rome? https://mobile.twitter.com/rtf_media/status/1557729218133340160

In some cases, yes, but I don't see how you can have an orthodox view of the papacy, infallibility, indefectibility, obedience, private judgment, unity of the Church etc. if you accept that the visible Catholic Church authority structure could completely disappear and/or have no Popes for 64 years (and counting).

I have a whole list of magisterial and Scriptural quotes, including from Our Lord, that are irreconcilable with the Sedevacantist view.

So I would say that while it is possible to be Sedevacantist and subjectively orthodox, by virtue of holding contradictory views and not realizing it, it is in itself inconsistent with orthodoxy and considered objectively is heretical or schismatic.

I may be wrong, goes without saying, but there it is.

Agree. Bold is basically my problem with sedevacantism. I attend the SSPX mass by the way. Still this crazy situation worries me and I'm afraid of being wrong, I pray daily for God to restore the Church and show the right path clearly.

Sure, great, we have a guy traipsing around Rome in a white cassock.  What does it even matter if said guy is corrupting the faith and leading souls to hell?

This is what I think of every time I hear this:

"Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him."[Ecclesiasticus 15:18]

As adults, nobody, but nobody can be led to where they do not want to go. Which is to say that those who follow, do so because they already want to go to the place they're being led to. Which means those who follow, bear some guilt or culpability for following. The more they know or knew, the greater their culpability and the greater will be their punishment if they don't get back on the narrow road - as many trads have done. 

After all, those who do not want to go, i.e. all trads, do not follow. Many may end up going in some other wrong direction on their own, or by choosing to follow some other man or group, but if they don't want to go to where the pope and conciliar church is leading them, then they do not follow.

This is something that is most often completely overlooked in this crisis. Some portion, I think a big portion of the blame for this crisis falls on those who have and still follow. After all, if all of the faithful did what what they're supposed to do, which is what trads did, then no one could say that the popes are "leading souls to hell."

Just a thought.