CathInfo.com

Mathew, I never made a case for sedevacantism, I never said I solved the Crisis, I never said that having positive doubt about Francis papacy would solve the Crisis. I am looking for a coherent defense that recognizing that there is positive doubt in the NREC does not logically conclude positive doubt of the Bishop of Rome. The answer I get is that it is mystery even though we have Vatican1 and are aware of the impediments to a valid election taught by the Church. The Crisis is a mystery but not every symptom of the crisis is.

I understand exactly where you are coming from, Comrade, it is a very pertinent question, an inevitable question, I would say, for anyone seriously trying to make sense of the crisis.

I agree with Matthew that there is a certain element of mystery involved that can only be resolved with the full weight of the Church's Authority.

However, in the meantime, the following teaching of St Robert Bellarmine certainly provides a "coherent defence" of this position of a Pope with doubtful orders being Pope nonetheless:

Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church... - St Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis: On The Church, Bk III On The Church Militant, Ch X On Secret Infidels

Isn't that interesting?

I understand exactly where you are coming from, Comrade, it is a very pertinent question, an inevitable question, I would say, for anyone seriously trying to make sense of the crisis.

I agree with Matthew that there is a certain element of mystery involved that can only be resolved with the full weight of the Church's Authority.

However, in the meantime, the following teaching of St Robert Bellarmine certainly provides a "coherent defence" of this position of a Pope with doubtful orders being Pope nonetheless:

Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church... - St Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis: On The Church, Bk III On The Church Militant, Ch X On Secret Infidels

Isn't that interesting?