So you are a schismatic.

Let us merely agree that there exists a schism.  There are Catholics who are loyal to Benedict XVI, and there are Catholics who are loyal to Miltiades II.  (The staggering majority, of course, have chosen to throw their lot in with Pope Benedict.  And that is the way the cookie crumbles.  So be it.)  Accusations of which side has truly defected will naturally depend on where one's loyalty lies.

Personally, I judge a tree by its fruits: the Avignon papacy convened the Council of Dublin to formally condemn the Novus Ordo Missae in 1976, and Pope Miltiades II infallibly defined the dogma of Creation in his 1985 encyclical Creavit Deus, solemnly anathematizing all those who will not publicly abjure the heresy of evolution.

Sadly, however, the schism continues.  But Avignon still holds strong against the tide of modernism, even as Pope Miltiades nears his centennial year.  It is my sincerest hope that all Catholics will one day be united under the banner of a single pope according to Our Lord's great desire: "that they all may be one."  Pax tecuм, Your Lordship!

Just because Herbert didn't deny being a Cardinal doesn't mean he's a Cardinal. That's like saying that if you ask me if I'm Pope and I don't respond then I must be Pope since I didn't deny it.

And answer this question: How can you submit to a Pope that wasn't validly elected?

Just because Herbert didn't deny being a Cardinal doesn't mean he's a Cardinal. That's like saying that if you ask me if I'm Pope and I don't respond then I must be Pope since I didn't deny it.

You are correct, Sir.  I do not know for certain that Herbert is Cardinal Yeobright.  But you made an unqualified insistence that he was not.  And that, I think, is going too far.  

I know as much as follows: 1.) that “Herbert” is not a very common name, 2.) that this Herbert is witty and congenial not unlike the manner in which Cardinal Yeobright is, and 3.) that I have addressed him several times as “Your Eminence” and he has not thus far corrected me.  Therefore I think I am on solid ground in my hypothesis.  (I should add that after I attended a speech of Cardinal Yeobright’s in 1972, I noticed a couple gallons of Mott’s in the parish refrigerator the following day.  I was the cook for the school cafeteria at the time).  Perhaps I am being too much like the Fox Mulder character on The X-Files, but I tell you this: “I want to believe.”

And answer this question: How can you submit to a Pope that wasn't validly elected?

Pope Miltiades II was elected by a conclave of three: H.F. Cardinal Yeobright, William Cardinal Kaljaanu, and Quentin Cardinal McDonough.  The conclave met in Alice Springs, Australia in 1972.
 
However, I do not make my submission to Pope Miltiades based solely on the circuмstances of his election.   For example, I know that the Church’s true mark of unity consists of the Church being united in the aspects of faith, morals, and public worship.  Consider, then, public worship.  Pope Miltiades ratified the Council of Dublin in 1976, at which the so-called Novus Ordo Missae was condemned as heretical, wicked, and at variance with tradition.  Pope Benedict XVI, on the hand, has indicated that the Novus Ordo Missae and the Tridentine Mass are “two forms of the same rite.”  What concord hath Christ with Belial?  Believing as I do (in good conscience) that the Novus Ordo is an abominable perversion of the Roman Rite akin to the destruction wrought by heretics such as Luther and Cranmer, I am convinced that in respect to the unity of the Church, Avignon better meets the mark than does Rome.  That is just one example.  I judge a tree by its fruits.

just so you know fionn, i am not cardinal yeobright!

And yet—hmm—that is precisely the type of response I would expect from Cardinal Yeobright himself, for he delights in that sort of mischief and playful evasion!  He was called, by one of his early parishoners in Lingiari, "a little Irish leprechaun of a priest," and with his thick shock of red hair, his stringy salt-and-cinnamon goatee, and that perpetual glint of rascality in his eye, there is something indeed of the leprechaun in him: a likeness made not the least more striking due to the fact that he stands at only 5'3"!  But what am I doing, Your Eminence, referring to you in the third person?  Yes, it's true—I still think you're Cardinal Yeobright.  Everything seems to confirm my suspicions.  And I remain both privileged and glad to be your friend.

The actor Alan Ladd was reportedly so diminutive that they had to dig trenches around him for some of his taller leading ladies to walk in.  But that is just Hollywood gossip.  Back when Hollywood still had a meager minimum of moral standards to speak of!  At any rate, I wasn't criticizing you (or Alan Ladd, for that matter) for being short.

Fionn, what more proof do you need that he's not a Cardinal?

For now, we will have to just wait and see.  I will be convinced that he's not being willfully cagey if he persists in denying it after a time.  For the true Cardinal Yeobright would reveal himself after the fun is exhausted: the proclamation of the gospel and the visibility of the Church obviously trump whatever pleasure is derived from playing hide-and-seek on the internet.

Would you believe he's a Pope if he told you he was?

No.  Although that would be a plausible claim (Pope Miltiades is 98 years old and Cardinal Yeobright, his own advanced age notwithstanding, is certainly a candidate to succeed him).  But I would need an external verification.

Ok, but I have a problem with three people getting together and electing a Pope. Even if they are Cardinals, I'm not so sure that would be considered a valid election. It's not an actual conclave. I concede that Paul VI was an anti-pope, but even under such circuмstances I don't think such an election would be valid.

I beg your pardon, Sir, for I fear that I have given the wrong impression: none of the electors at the 1972 Australian conclave were cardinals at the time, although they have since been made cardinals by Pope Miltiades.  Cardinal Yeobright and Cardinal Kaljaanu were bishops, and Cardinal McDonough was a Franciscan friar.  That probably diminishes my claim even further in your eyes, but I would just like to clear up any confusion I’ve sown.

Now, I will concede that it’s possible that the conclave in question did not meet the requirements according to the 1917 Canon Law code, but I think the core premise (which is that a pope is to be elected by the successors to the apostles) was fulfilled, especially if one is willing to grant that Rome (by and large, and those in communion with her) had apostatized by 1972.  Even if the Church is reduced to a handful, it remains incuмbent upon the apostles to acknowledge a pontifex maximus from among themselves.  At the conclave in Alice Springs, that much (that bare minimum!) was accomplished.  

To consider whether it met any finer standards for validity is (to my reckoning) to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.  Desperate times call for desperate measures.  The bottom line for me is that the Holy Father, Pope Miltiades II, speaks in a voice hallowed by tradition, whereas the conciliar lineage of papas at the Vatican has not spoken nearly in such a way.  There are really no hard and fast rules for what to do when the Apostolic See at Rome defects from the faith, but the wisdom of St. Vincent still rings with clarity after more than fifteen centuries: “it is to antiquity that we must cling.”  I recognize the Church by her marks, and I judge a tree by its fruits.  Domine miserere!

Only Cardinals can elect a Pope. So Militiades' election wasn't valid.

Hmm.  Was the election of Pope Gregory the Great invalid, too?

If you want to be legalistic, you can.  But then you will have the problem of belonging to a Church which is not united in public worship (among many other things) because it claims "two forms of the same rite," one heretical and the other holy.  The Church must bear her four marks.  Me, I don't strain at a gnat to swallow a camel.  But that, admittedly, is just me.  May God have mercy on me, a sinner!

Something important I should point out: There's no such thing as Pope Militiades II. I've never heard of such a person.

But my good Sir—there are billions of people on this planet of whom you've never heard.  Surely that does not render them nonexistent!  I beg you to reconsider your logic in this respect.

Secondly (and it might not matter a whit), his name is spelled without the "i" which you are inserting between the L and the T.

It is interesting to note, however, that Pope Miltiades is, like Melchisidek of old, "without father, without mother, and without genealogy."  All that is known for certain about his descent is that he is an Aboriginal Australian.  On the dusty morning of 22 November 1918 he wandered (only a wee small child) into civilization from the arid abyss of the outback—shuffling wordlessly into the tiny missionary settlement established by Bishop Pádraic O'Flannery.  He was about five years old.  He spoke an ancient dialect of the aboriginal tongue, unknown mostly even to the elders.  In time he was taught English (and Latin & Greek as well, as the bishop was his tutor and he proved an excellent pupil, insatiable in particular for both language and Holy Writ).  In 1926 he was christened Florin Christopher Maakutju, and he was received into the Catholic Church by Bishop O'Flannery.  His confirmation name, perhaps, was auspicious: for the name which the young boy chose was Peter.