Someone said that the reason sedevacantists don't hold a conclave is that they are waiting for a miracle. This seems very strange, and to owe more to Pentecostalism than Catholicism.

There's nothing strange about it.  To have a conclave there must be the proper conditions to hold a conclave.  There must be more understanding and acknowledgement of the problem, and less confusion.  The conditions must be right.

It's not strange to believe in miracles.  It is strange to believe a Pope can be Pope and publicly deny them.

If there are X number of sedevacantist bishops in the world, and no more, surely those bishops have a duty to organise to appoint a successor to whoever they believe the last bishop of Rome was? If the Soviets had nuked St Peter's during Vatican II, taking out all the cardinals and left only a handful of bishops, are we saying that the remaining bishops would have sat on their hands and waited for a miracle, rather than organising to appoint a new pope?

They don't have any duty to do what is not in their power.

Benedict XVI must be the Pope because sedes bishops at this time do not believe they have authority to call a conclave.

Pure nonsense and sophistry.

Being Pope depends on not being manifestly a heretic.

If you're unable to state those 'conditions' perhaps someone else may? Surely its not that vague.

The Roman Pontiff must be elected by the clergy of the diocese of Rome. Otherwise the election is invalid.

Quote from: s2srea

If you're unable to state those 'conditions' perhaps someone else may? Surely its not that vague.

The Roman Pontiff must be elected by the clergy of the diocese of Rome. Otherwise the election is invalid.

So shouldn't sedes be setting up shop in Rome with a view to electing a pope? Given the importance of the papacy - as set out at Vatican I - and the certainty with which they proclaim its vacancy, all this squeamishness seems a bit odd.

Yes, I remember that. An since sede's generally believe all these men are full apostates and manifest heretics who have lost office, then they do not hold the diocese of Rome, right? Are there no sedevecantists in Rome? If so, are sede bishops unable to move to Rome to elect a new Pope, then?

It may not be strange to believe in miracles, not at all. But it is strangely imprudent if the above is answered in the affirmative. Especially given that there is no reference to the election of a pope by bishops who are 'sedes' in any revelation to any of the mystics. Yet its stated its strange to believe that a "Pope and publicly deny them", as Telesphorous states. That is, objectively, both illogical and emotional.

Quote from: Klaus

So shouldn't sedes be setting up shop in Rome with a view to electing a pope? Given the importance of the papacy - as set out at Vatican I - and the certainty with which they proclaim its vacancy, all this squeamishness seems a bit odd.

Unfortunately, so long as Catholics believe in the kind of ludicrous logic that says must claim the authority to elect a new a Pope before saying there isn't one, so long as Catholics think that way, there's unlikely to be any general recognition of the true situation, hence no means will be forthcoming, for some time.

Who's saying that? I'm not. I just find myself wondering whether sedevacantists really believe what they claim to believe - with all the attendant implications - or if perhaps they just lack the courage of their convictions.

Quote from: Klaus

Quote from: Exilenomore

Quote from: s2srea

If you're unable to state those 'conditions' perhaps someone else may? Surely its not that vague.

The Roman Pontiff must be elected by the clergy of the diocese of Rome. Otherwise the election is invalid.

So shouldn't sedes be setting up shop in Rome with a view to electing a pope? Given the importance of the papacy - as set out at Vatican I - and the certainty with which they proclaim its vacancy, all this squeamishness seems a bit odd.

How do you suggest that they become incardinated into the Roman diocese? God must somehow have preserved such Roman clerics, so that the perpetual Succession of St. Peter is not interrupted.

So there are sedevacantist clergy in Rome who have not embraced any Modernist errors who could in principle elect a new pope... but they're invisible to all but God? Is that what you're saying?

Can you give a single example of a Catholic cleric who was legitimately incardinated into the Roman diocese by a valid Pope, has retained right belief and from whom the Roman Pontiff must come?