I see you are sinking into sedevacantism.

I will pray for you.

Please pray for me.

Oh, I don't know.  There are worse things than sedevacantism.  Sedevacantism is at least based in the application of a conclusion forwarded by a Doctor of the Church ... even if it's debated.  You could argue against his conclusion or at least the application of it to today, but you can't say that it's condemned or inherently non-Catholic.  

R&R on the other hand, the kind which insists that these men MUST be popes, posits a defection of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline ... which no theologian has EVER held.  Find ONE THEOLOGIAN who has ever taught or believed that the Universal Church could put into use a Rite of Mass that offends God.  In fact, theologians would have universally condemned the proposition as unquestionably heretical.

So which is worse?

I see the point you are making, but it is slightly out of place:

The issue in question is whether a unanimous recognition of Francis as Pope exists (i.e., an argument of fact), which would trigger Billot's conclusion.

It clearly does, since 99.9999693% recognize his papacy.

That 0.0000307% of those calling themselves Catholic dispute this in no way suffices to disqualify a conclusion of unanimity, since the unanimity being spoken of is moral unanimity, not mathematical unanimity.

And how many of the 99.9999693% are actually Catholic?  Not many, now are there?

Sean, by the Novus Ordo's OWN POLLING DATA, 95%+ of these 1+ billion have lost the faith ... rejecting one Catholic dogma or another.  So how is acceptance by such a mass of apostasy a sign of the Church's infallible discernment regarding the matter of legitimacy?

Polls starting in the 1990s indicated that 70%+ of Novus Ordo "Catholics" don't believe in the real presence.  Of those 30% who remain Catholic on this point, probably another 75% don't believe in papal infallibility or don't believe that birth control is wrong or reject one or another Church dogma.

Yeah, so much for "moral" unanimity.  

Slightly tedious article especially considering that Mr. Johnson is a self appointed theologian of the resistance.

The ways in which is is right are the following:
-Sedevacantists usually aren't long in trying to convert others to their point of view, and it is hard for them to stay "non-dogmatic".
- They often tend to be slippery in the way they do this and can cause trouble.

- Mr Johnson deserves praise for having finally had the courage to publish his articles here in his own name, rather than get someone else to do it.

Ways in which he is wrong:
- They are not as much as a threat as he makes them out to be. Sometimes there can be sedes who just don't cause trouble. I suspect that he is causing such a scene about this to disguise his own liberalism.


We should note that an equally big threat in the resistance, if not bigger,is those laity, and certain clerics, who seek to impose artificial structures on the resistance. They then act in the most arrogant manner pretending that those outside these structures are inferior in some way. Mark my words, my dear friends, these people are snakes in the grass. Canon law is already very demanding without having to insist that we HAVE to have everyone in such structures. This is a form of liberalism, with a tinge of communism IMHO.

"Slightly tedious comment", especially considering that yet another new member jumps straight in with fostering enmities and divisions within the Resistance.

1. Every single Traditional Catholic is a self appointed theologian, and must be so in order to remain Traditional. If some people put more effort in this than others, is that something we should be deriding them for?

2. Mr Johnson has already explained his reason for the time he did not post here under his own name, and that reason had nothing to do with a lack of courage, on the contrary. By the way, where's your courage in anonymously attacking those who unlike you have the courage and integrity to speak in their own name?

3. The history of the SSPX is full of troubles caused by two seemingly opposite sides, based on the same underlying error: those who left to join the Conciliar Church, and those who left to become sedevacantists. Your comments about sedes not being "as much a threat" is just plain ignorant. You should learn to think before you speak.

4. Your accusations about Mr Johnson's "disguising his own liberalism" is a gratuitous accusation and further proof of your malice.

You should take a lesson from Mr Johnson and learn to research the issues you like to comment on, to think before you speak, and to speak like a Catholic. You are the type of person that sows divisions, spreads falsehoods, repulses honest and serious Catholics and is able to ruin a forum.

Anything, but sedevacantism! :jumping2:

Anything but error! :jumping2:

Sean, the truly objective readers (not the dogmatic sedeplenists, anti-sedevacantists like yourself) will see that "Universal Church" does not include the large percentage of Novus Ordites who do not hold nor profess the Catholic Faith.  Therefore, your so-called moral unanimity defense for claiming that the heretic currently in the Chair of Peter has to be legitimate doesn't hold any water.

And how many of the 99.9999693% are actually Catholic?  Not many, now are there?

All of them are members of the Catholic Church, while the "few" (Traditional) consider the "many" (Conciliar) bad Catholics and vice versa.

Billot's argument was based on "Catholics", not on "good Catholics".