CathInfo.com

Sedevacantism is refuted here:

https://onepeterfive.com/sedevacantists-church-without-pope/

Asking Sedevacantists: A Church without Popes Forever?
Nishant Xavier
July 23, 2020

Recently, an event of significance for sedevacantists came to pass. The last bishop consecrated to be appointed to office in 1958 — i.e., during the reign of Pope Pius XII — finally passed into eternity. That this is so can also be verified at the Catholic Hierarchy website and the updated lists at Wikipedia.
The most senior living bishop (sort the Wiki list by Consecrated Bishop) is now His Excellency Bishop Eloy Tato Losado of Spain. Consecrated bishop on July 25, 1960, about 60 years ago, during the reign of Pope John XXIII, this bishop was appointed to office and received his authority from that pope.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Why is all this of consequence for sedevacantists? Because many sedevacantists hold that Pope Pius XII was the last pope and that the See of St. Peter has been vacant since then, for almost 62 years.
Point I: Apostolic Succession Requires Ordinary Jurisdiction.
It is a common misconception that episcopal orders alone are sufficient for apostolic succession. In point of fact, both episcopal orders and ordinary jurisdiction (actual succession to an episcopal see) are necessary for apostolic succession. In the old manuals and theology books, the power of orders is sometimes referred to as the “matter” or material element of apostolic succession, while the power of jurisdiction is the form or formal element in a man’s succession to episcopal authority.Point II: Ordinary Jurisdiction Comes by Papal Appointment.
How does ordinary jurisdiction come to the bishops? The “last pope” of the sedevacantists, His Holiness Pope Pius XII, helpfully answers:Rev. Fr. Stanislaus Woywod, in his commentary on the Old Code of Canon Law, confirms:Point III: Ordinary Jurisdiction Cannot Cease in the Whole Church.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

This is a logical consequence of the two points discussed above. It follows as a syllogism also:
Major: The Church cannot cease to be apostolic (as we profess in the Creed).
Minor: But ordinary jurisdiction is necessary for apostolicity (as proved above).
Conclusion: Hence, ordinary jurisdiction cannot cease in the whole Church.
As the Church of Christ cannot cease to be apostolic, so she cannot cease to have at least some bishops who are formal and full successors of the apostles. In this way, she retains the note of apostolicity as a permanent mark by which she can be distinguished from all breakaway sects.
Point IV: Therefore, the See of St. Peter Cannot Be Vacant Indefinitely.
This point follows from points 1 to 3. If ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity can be transmitted only through the successors of St. Peter, and formal apostolicity cannot cease to exist in the whole Church, it necessarily follows that there must be perpetual successors of St. Peter until the end of time — as also defined dogma precisely says. The Petrine succession and the apostolic succession are intimately connected. Only a successor of St. Peter can “make” a successor to the apostles in the formal and full sense, by appointment to office conferring authority on him.
Point V: Therefore, it is heretical, and contrary to St. Peter’s perpetual successors, to hold to indefinite sedevacantism. It is necessary to renounce the error and to come out of it.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

The Church cannot exist without the pope and without the powers he himself has communicated to others (like the bishops and cardinals) for the time of the vacant see.Thus, the Church cannot exist indefinitely once those bishops appointed by the last pope die. The Church exists only so long as the powers already communicated by the last pope remain.
An objection and its answer: “Does supplied jurisdiction save the day for sedevacantism?” No.
Not in the case of preserving apostolicity, for we have already seen ordinary jurisdiction (jurisdiction as a habitual power, as attached to a see or office) is necessary for formal apostolicity. Even an excommunicated priest may sometimes be supplied jurisdiction in a tacit and transient manner — however, this is not the equivalent of the Church conferring a permanent mission on him. The former does not equate to ordinary jurisdiction, but is only jurisdiction supplied for the act.
Supplied jurisdiction is referred to by canonists as a “delegatio a iure,” a delegation operative by the law itself. It is, basically, a tacit and transient delegation that comes from the Church — the Church here meaning the local bishop, the whole teaching Church, or the Roman pontiff himself.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

So, even if jurisdiction is supplied to the sede bishops, that doesn’t make them successors to the apostles. Neither therefore does it preserve the apostolic indefectibility of the teaching Church.
Another objection: Would papal jurisdiction be supplied to the “heretic anti-pope (HAP) for his appointments?” Not so. For cuм Ex – the one docuмent on a heretical pontiff in Church history, which the earlier sedevacantists especially appealed to — explicitly says that those “appointed” by a heretic lack all authority. Those apparently “appointed” by heretics are not appointed at all [1].
Hence, if it is true that all the popes of the last 62 years have all been heretics, it necessarily follows that all their appointments are invalid, and the Church has defected and lost her formal apostolicity.
Conversely, if it is impossible that the Catholic Church defects and loses apostolicity, it follows that the popes doing the appointing to continue the succession must necessarily have been true popes.
Perhaps It Is Time to Come Home to Mother Church?

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Sedevacantists deserve at least the same charity and courtesy shown to Protestants. Perhaps many sedevacantists are only in a material schism, earnestly not intending to be in schism.
But it is impossible to deny that sedevacantism, objectively and as such, constitutes a grave error. The simplest way to see this is to ask, “(1) How long can an interregnum last? (2) Is an interregnum indefinitely extended (e.g., 100-plus years) even possible?” Clearly not. There surely is a limit.
If saying an indefinite vacancy of St. Peter’s throne is possible, then the dogma that St. Peter must have perpetual successors in the primacy over the Church is a meaningless formula. Conversely, if that dogma actually means something, it means that the Church cannot be without popes forever.
Dom Prosper Guéranger writes how those who lost the Faith were unable to transmit the mission to others: “By God’s permission, the sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, were defiled by heresy; they became chairs of pestilence; and having corrupted the faith they received from Rome, they could not transmit to others the mission they themselves had forfeited. Sad indeed was the ruin of such pillars as these! Peter’s hand had placed them in the Church. They had merited the love and veneration of men; but they fell; and their fall gave one more proof of the solidity of that edifice, which Christ Himself had built on Peter.”

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Finally, sedevacantism really comes from a form of despair, fear, and worry that “it’s all over.”
Why should we worry when God is with us? Why should we despair when the Immaculata has promised us that, through the pope and bishops’ consecration of Russia, the Immaculate Heart will triumph, Russia will be converted, and a period of peace will be given to the world? How do we know that God may not act mightily in Pope Francis’s life? If we are Christians, we dare not say that that is impossible, but let us jointly pray, work, and sacrifice for that to come about. How do we know that God may not, after Pope Francis, give us a sovereign pontiff strong in the Catholic faith? To those who believe, all things are possible. If we pray, fast, work, and ask, the Lord will never fail us.
In conclusion, since sedevacantism is now known to be a harmful error, if any has adhered to it in the past, the time is now to come out of it and re-experience the glorious liberty of the children of God, by living in Catholic communion with the universal Church.

---

[1] cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio: “[E[ach and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone[.]”

It's time to pack it up, Nishant. Especially with the constant slander.

Let him stop calling me a Heretic, and I'll stop calling him a Schismatic. Regardless of various Theological Opinions about the Crisis, it is indisputable that calling another Catholic in Good Standing with the Church a "heretic" is schismatic. Thus the Church, during the Thomist-Molinist Debates, forbade either side from calling each other heretics.

Yes it is always I will change if someone else changes first.  That seems like a successful plan.  

Stop with the effeminacy.  If you consider me a schismatic, then continue calling me a schismatic.  I would have far more respect for you if you continued calling me a schismatic ... if that's what you actually believe ... than if you would stop merely for the sake of some truce and false irenicism.  That's the same crap that the Modernists pull with "Ecuмenism", where they just don't condemn each other, and if they don't talk about their disagreements they cease to exist, like a baby who has no sense for object permanence.

Lol. Done deal then. You're a Schismatic.

As for your assertion that calling someone who self-identifies as Catholic a heretic simply because the Conciliar Church hasn't declared them is idiotic.  You can certainly be a heretic even if you're not declared, and a huge percentage of the Conciliar bishops are open heretics.

More unsupported assertions. (1) Name the Heresy (2) Name the Paragraph in the Catechism that teaches it. (1) Luther and (2) Photius were sure they were right too. How do you know you're not a Heretic or Schismatic just like them?

And the Pope only made the declaration regarding the Thomist-Molinist debate because the Holy See couldn't satisfactorily determine which side was right and which wrong.

Oh, LOL, the Irony. So the Very Pope, and the Holy See couldn't determine which side was right and which wrong yet you dare excommunicate Indult Traditional Catholics when (1) you can't name a Single Heresy that the Catechism teaches (2) or that we Indult Traditional Catholics, many of whom pray 20 Decades of Rosaries a day minimum, and adore and worship the Holy Eucharist for ours, before and after Holy Mass, thus proving we are Catholics, hold.

As soon as Nestorius began preaching his heresy, the layman Eusebius famously got up during a sermon and denounced the heresy, and eventually the the entire congregation joined him in drowning out Nestorius.  No one has ever considered him to be a schismatic.

Nestorius completely refutes your position. Laypeople had a suspicion of Heresy, thus they reported him to his Proper Superiors. You and Peter Dimond seem to be Lutheran Protestants, for you recognize no official Superior over yourselves with Binding Authority over you. Or, if I am mistaken and you do, who are said Authorities can you tell me? Any Diocesan Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction? Any Roman Church Official, even a Cardinal? Or do you believe the Church has defected in all those places, as the Schismatic Peter Dimond taught you to believe? These questions demand an answer.

You've smoked too much of the Salza / Siscoe weed.

I baked/cooked Salza and Siscoe in my Articles defending the SSPX. They stole the Universal Acceptance Argument from me, without Credit, both in their Article and their Book. But the Truth is Truth, and like Saint Paul said, I rejoice anyway.
[/quote]