Matthew,

No one can upset me but me. We upset ourselves, no one can really upset us. Why do you upset yourself about the sedevacantes position?

The crisis of the Church today is a mystery as you say, and each individual sede has their own answer which satisfies them, the same as you do. It seems to me that what we have here is a conflict between the people on both sides who don't really believe what they preach, or else they would not be so sensitive.

I think it is a mystery too. I do not believe with certainty of faith that the Vatican II "popes" are popes. From what I can see, from their deeds, it looks to me like they are every bit the destroyers of Catholicism, that the devil himself could not have done a better job, while appearing to be a pope.

I have nothing against sedes and I do not debate with them, why should I? From what I can see the last 50 years, and it is totally clear now that the sede organizations are the only ones that are screaming from the housetops that the entire Vatican II church is a forgery. Forged ordinations & consecrations of bishops = there are no priests and no mass. What R&R group is teaching this today?  

One more point. Simple one made by +Sanborn in his London conference.  Taking the whole Nervous Ordeal, does it represent a continuity with Catholicism, or does it not?  That was pretty simple proposition thnat helped me to come to terms with many questions.  No mental gymnastics for this mental midget.  I just stay away from that "church"  OR I hold my nose and walk across the street to it on Sunday (or tonight's Saturday Night Special and sleep in tomorrow) and quit my bitching.  It kind of is that black and white, after25+ years of doing this "trad" thing. 

The crisis of the Church today is a mystery as you say, and each individual sede has their own answer which satisfies them, the same as you do. It seems to me that what we have here is a conflict between the people on both sides who don't really believe what they preach, or else they would not be so sensitive.

What does this mean? I think it is only these sensitive people who feel a need to keep harping on the subject of sedevacantes on one side or the other. There are people who would have a complete breakdown if they didn't have these crutches of the strict R&R and the strict sedevacantes positions.

Fr. Jenkins has the right attitude.

Maybe I should change my quote below to "Tradhican, creating enemies of everyone since 1950."

What does this mean? I think it is only these sensitive people who feel a need to keep harping on the subject of sedevacantes on one side or the other. There are people who would have a complete breakdown if they didn't have these crutches of the strict R&R and the strict sedevacantes positions.

Fr. Jenkins has the right attitude.

Maybe I should change my quote below to "Tradhican, creating enemies of everyone since 1950."

History shows no such thing about holding back important truths and exposing doctrinal error just for the hypothetical chance some unbalanced person may have a mental problem when he finds out he is wrong. That's basically a touch of ecuмenism.

But you guys DO REALIZE, of course, that the Catholic Church has no official teaching about what happens when a Pope falls into heresy. Right?

All the St. Robert Bellarmine quotes in the world won't make it a dogma or official teaching of the Church. His opinion on whether the Pope could fall into heresy, and what would happen if a pope DID theoretically fall into heresy, was just his personal opinion, nothing more. Other theologians -- his equals, I must point out -- disagreed with him. St. Robert Bellarmine wasn't some kind of universal, eternal mega-pope whose opinion gets precedence over all others.

Why are we still discussing the pros and cons of sedevacantism in 2017, when this Crisis has been going on since the 1960's?

Either concrete proof, dogma, doctrine has been impossible to find, or there are a LOT of

A) ignorant, uneducated, dull of mind, and/or
B) sellout, compromisers, wanting ease, human respect and unwilling to fight, and/or
C) malicious sinners who don't want to be Catholic

people out there. Just look at all the Traditional Catholics even (who see the problems) who fail to become Sedevacantist. They look at the arguments and they say, "Meh. I'll pass."

Now there are some sedevacantists -- the dogmatic kind -- who think sedevacantism itself is a dogma of the Catholic Faith: if you deny it, you aren't Catholic. This sort of sedevacantist isn't allowed on CathInfo, because they believe that every non-sedevacantist fits into category A, B, or C (above) -- or even more than one category. This is simply not true, and CathInfo is a message board for the truth and those trying to seek, share and expose the truth.

If Sedevacantism had a silver bullet, a conclusive proof or argument, it would have prevailed by now.

My conclusion is that the Catholic Church HAS nothing "on the books" for a situation like the Vatican II Crisis in the Church. My conclusion is that the Crisis is a mystery, which can't be reduced to any simple explanation.

The Church does provide justification for the Traditional Catholic movement, but it doesn't explain away every facet of the Crisis, and it certainly doesn't insist on Sedevacantism. It takes care of our souls, while leaving us shrouded in mystery.

If the Crisis could be reduced to a simple explanation, there would only be one true solution, and all the others would be IN ERROR, just like protestants and other non-Catholics.

 
Matthew,
 
I'm curious what you think of the quote below which shows the mind of the Church Fathers as of the time of the First Vatican Council:
 
"The question was also raised (at the First Vatican Council) by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy." Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago
 
I have many friends and family in the SSPX, and in my experience nearly all of them cannot defend their position - they stay where they are primarily out of convenience. They primarily don't want to risk upsetting/losing family and friends, having to change parishes, change jobs, sell their homes etc by switching to a sedevacantist chapel.
 
As for "dogmatic sedevacantism", we just had a discussion on that very topic in this same section. What was said there shows that this accusation is a novelty and primarily meant to silence the opposition. It would be interesting for you to read what was said there and reply with your comments. The discussion was called, "Origins of "dogmatic sedevacantism?"
 

I don't have time to respond to each of your replies, and I probably shouldn't. To be perfectly frank with all of you, here is the reason:
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/looking-for-computer-programming-work-java-php-mysql-android/

I only wanted to make ONE point, namely: Sedevacantism isn't the only valid sub-position within the broader Traditional Catholic movement. There are plenty of smart AND well-educated AND holy AND generous/fervent AND despising convenience and human respect individuals who choose for good reasons NOT to be sedevacantist.

Just looking at the position objectively, it seems to solve nothing. ALL (as in, 100% of) the benefits of attending a CMRI or SSPV chapel would also be gained by attending one of Fr. Zendejas' resistance chapels. The sedevacantist "garnish" adds no new benefits to the existing "Traditional Catholic" position. So for this reason, it's best to steer clear in my opinion.

As I've said many times before, God hasn't stepped in and made His preference known. Until He does, I will choose to stay the course, following +Lefebvre's very Catholic and prudent position, which also was replete with good fruits. Sure, the SSPX fell, but that doesn't say anything bad about the position, any more than the decadence of Catholicism in the 1400's meant the Church was bad (as the Lutherans would allege). In my experience, Archbishop Lefebvre's prudent position does everything that needs to be done, avoiding "extras" which don't help or only divide us.

When God intervenes, please let me know.

Until then, I have a family to raise and support, both financially and spiritually, and that is of much more PRACTICAL value and concern for me than the status of the Pope.

I am smart enough to know that God isn't going to judge or condemn anyone about the Pope question, one way or another. To allege otherwise is laughable. As if we laymen could ever be qualified to properly deal with such a problem!

I don't have time to respond to each of your replies, and I probably shouldn't. 

  :applause:That's the spirit!