CathInfo.com

Shuckhardt was the first that I know of.  But he wasn't the only.  Both Patrick Henry Omlor and Hutton Gibson likewise were early traditionalists who possessed exceptionally brilliant minds and quickly came to the realization that true popes could not possibly promote heresy to the entire Church.  A large number of people who never went along with the Novus Ordo at any point, ended up sede.  And now even the Novus Ordo people are reacting to Francis not by asserting a right to reject his doctrine but by going directly to the argument that he cannot be a true pope.  Salza is the poster-child for everything that can go wrong when you take the R&R position and then arrogantly assert that any other position is heretical and/or schismatic.

I'm not sure about Omlor, but we can look at what happened to Schuckardt and Gibson and the many sedes who've gone off the rails and lost the faith, just like we can look at many trad non-sede's who've done the same, heck, I'm sure we all know of many who have done this, often times we know from experience with our own family members who have abandon everything holy to pursue a life of sin. So this is statistic is, imo, not worth bringing into this discussion.

It can be argued whether error or heresy leads to the loss of faith and immorality, which is most often (but not always) what I believe is the case, or whether it's the other way around. Either way, if the (still unproven) accusation is true that Salza lost the faith and is now NO, it could be that, he, as you said: "came to the realization that true popes could not possibly promote heresy to the entire Church" - which personally, after everything on the subject he had to study in detail, I very highly doubt.






 

According to whom are they the brightest, and in what manner, in particular? Might not this attitude bring about a certain amount of pride?

I have to wonder if the sedevacantists and their fellow travellers believe that they are somehow VERY special, or favored by God, in order to somehow save the Catholic Faith. Kind of like the pentacostals or charismatics, who believe that they are in direct contact with God.

The sede vacantist position is based on the writings of Catholic theologians prior to V2.  In particular the Doctor of the Church who is especially revered for his teaching on the Church's ecclesiology, St Robert Bellarmine.  In fact, St Robert is so important to this controversy that some R&R apologists felt it necessary to flip the script and claim that St Robert actually supports the R&R position.  But the vast majority of people who have studied the problem, conclude that St Robert supports the sede position.  So there is no reason for sedes to feel any sense of pride.  If literal geniuses such as Patrick Omlor, Hutton Gibson and John Daly (160 IQ) have concluded that the Holy See is vacant that certainly does give the sede position some weight that it would otherwise not have but it does not make the position superior.  Only the truth of the matter can make it superior.  If it is true then it certainly is superior to all other false positions.

Pathetic.

St. Robert Bellarmine refutes the sedevacantist.

He said the Church had to be involved in the process, whereas sedes pay him lip service dishonestly (kind of like the liberals do to Cardinal Newman), in order to associate a name to their invention, then cast him aside and declare the see empty (forever) without any recourse to the Church.

Who can take these nuts seriously?

What were you saying about pride, Meg?