I kindly ask ALL CATHINFO MEMBERS to please vote in this poll. It only takes a few seconds.

You need to be a CathInfo member to vote in the poll. If you are not a CathInfo member yet, perhaps now is the time to sign up for an account. There is no obligation to post in the future, or give out any information which might identify you. You can talk about yourself as much or as little as you like.

The results will be kept anonymous; the poll is "for entertainment purposes only". I'm not going to look up the results and ban all the sedevacantists or something. I already know who most of the sedevacantists are; if that was my goal I wouldn't bother with a poll.



Once again, I consider myself good at writing polls. That is to say, the poll is clear, FOCUSED, easy to understand, each option is exclusive, with no overlap, and everyone fits into one of the options. Please select the option that most closely fits your position.

And since I know Trads so well, I have to add: Please don't flatter yourself; I assure you that I thought of your position, and included it in the poll. Please select it.

The focus of this poll is the OPINION of each CathInfo member on the status of Pope Francis. This is not about what the Church has or hasn't decided, what will be decided eventually, the value of a layman's personal opinion, or any of that.

If you believe he's pope by default and it's up to the Church to declare otherwise, then great! Select "Recognize and Resist" or "I just don't know, I have my doubts".

This poll also has NOTHING AT ALL to do with where you attend Mass. You can believe he's the Pope and attend a sedevacantist chapel, or be sedevacantist and attend an SSPX chapel. This is only about each member's fragile, relatively worthless, personal opinion on the status of Pope Francis.

Why would that be?  A conclavist sede is very different than a sede.

1. Of course they are different. That's why they are different poll options!

2. They are both sedevacantist, so MOST writers would group them together.

3. But it doesn't matter if you disagree with a given hypothetical, future "grouping" or not -- I'm keeping them separate in this poll, and the results are public! So if you disagree with a grouping, please take it up with the hypothetical future author who takes these results and illogically combines this or that pile together.

Sound good?

I- of course- voted Siri thesis but am not so sure he appointed a successor. :cheers:

who said that lmao

LOL, that's Amakusa.  He claims that a demon told an exorcist that Paul VI was still alive (must be around 130 by now) and that he would return to reclaim his office and end the crisis.  Taking no account of the fact that Montini very much caused said crisis.  Perhaps then he repented of his ways and re-converted (according to sedeprivationism, he would then resume being formally the pope).

Hey, we could come up with a scenario that includes ALL of the above positions.  That might be fun.

LOL, that's Amakusa.  He claims that a demon told an exorcist that Paul VI was still alive (must be around 130 by now) and that he would return to reclaim his office and end the crisis.  Taking no account of the fact that Montini very much caused said crisis.  Perhaps then he repented of his ways and re-converted (according to sedeprivationism, he would then resume being formally the pope).

Hey, we could come up with a scenario that includes ALL of the above positions.  That might be fun.

The 50 Year Apostasy and the Revenge of Montini - coming to a book store near you.

I'm so glad we have a demon's testimony to rely on to know Montini still lives at 130 years of age. If it were a man I mightn't believe it, but a demon would surely never tell fibs. 

For your reading pleasure:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-apocalypse-unveiled/

I must say that it is highly entertaining.

This is even better than that guy who claimed the last Pope, Peter the Roman, was some random exorcist in America that he refused to name. At least Amakusa is saying someone else is the true Pope, rather that the aforementioned guy who I believe was referring to himself. 

Every SSPX bishop has at one point speculated that they MIGHT be illegitimate.  That already makes them DOUBTFUL POPES and on that account NO POPES (Papa Dubius Nullus Papa) ... for all intents and purposes.  

None of the popes since the council can be considered "doubtful," according to the teaching of the canonists.

Wernz-Vidal explains that the phrase "Papa dubius est papa nullus" can be understood negatively or positively.  It is understood positively when, "after a careful examination of the fact, competent men in the Catholic Church would pronounce: 'The validity of the canonical election of this Roman pontiff is uncertain'."  This has not taken place.  

Werns-Vidal go on to explain that the words "no pope" do not apply to a pope who was at first accepted by the entire Church, "but concerning whose election so many difficulties are subsequently brought to light that he becomes 'a doubtful pope' in such a way that he would thereby forfeit the pontifical power already obtained."   Once his election is accepted by the entire Church, as has been the case with every pope from John XXIII until now, any later doubts that arise, even if the doubts are real, will not make, nor will it suggest, that he is "no pope".   The reason is because the acceptance of the election by the entire Church makes his legitimacy infallibly certain, and he will legally retain the pontificate until he ether dies, resigns, or is declared deposed by the competent authorities due to insanity or heresy.  

The negative way in which a pope can be legitimately deemed doubtful is if his election was always in doubt from the beginning and continues to remain in doubt. "But the other part of this axiom could have the meaning that a Roman pontiff whose canonical election is uncertain and remains subject to positive and solid doubts after studious examination, absolutely never did acquire also the papal jurisdiction from Christ the Lord."  In this case it would be legitimate to refuse him obedience, but not because of doubts that arise after his election has been accepted as pope by the entire Church.   

Obedience can be refused to a legitimate Pope if the command given is illicit, being opposed to faith or charity, but he must be obeyed in all other things.  I would also note that, whereas I fall into the category of "Recognize and Resist", I have never refused any direct command of the Pope.  Maybe we should come up with a third category to further divide traditional Catholics.

I voted sedevacantist, but I'm prefectly open to someone explaining that there *is* a Pope. The position is much more about who *isn't* Pope than insisting that there isn't one at all.