Quote from: Clemens Maria

If you can't see that it is probably a waste of time to argue with you.

Don't be an ass.

Hypocrite!

That's right, pound the table and scream when the evidence is against you or, as in this case, you have nothing to think with.

Quote from: J.Paul

You have approached this discussion in an over emotional and defensively biased frame of mind.

Then, of course, there's always psychoanalysis to fall back on, isn't there? What are you, then: a Sullivanian, a behaviorist, an old-fashioned Freudian, or something cooler, more up to date?

More precisely, an observationist. It takes no pseudo-science to observe when another is agitated and makes comments which lean toward a particular point of view.

Dear sedevacantist members of the forum:

My position on sedevacantism is . . .  I just don't know or don't know enough.

I enjoy listening to Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada for the clarity with which they make their points, but at the end of the day, I still end up with this overwhelming feeling over who is really right: the "recognize but resist" crowd or "the See is empty" crowd.

Having read the response by Bishop Sanborn to Bishop Williamson's critique of sedevacantism, the main point I have been able to extract is that the "recognize but resist" position is not a Catholic solution because:

1. It is predicated on the use of private judgment; and because

2. We do not have the right to "sift" through the teachings of the Magisterial authorities whom we do in fact recognized as the real, legitimate Magisterial authorities of the Church today.

Fair enough . . .

The nagging question for me, then, is how do the sedevacantists themselves escape the use of private judgment, since they must inevitably rely on it to decide whether or not to recognize the current teaching authorities in the Church?

Taking a simplified example of Luther, what difference in culpability would he have incurred as a heretic had he:

1. Taken it upon himself to determine what was consistent with Christ's original teachings (sifting doctrine); or

2. Taken in upon himself to determine what was the authentic Magisterium and what was a fake that should not be followed (sifting Magisteriums)?

To me, whether it is "recognize but resist" or "the See is empty," there doesn't seem to be any escaping of the use of private judgment . . . which then leads me to ask, are there legitimate cases where we need to make use of so-called "private judgment"/common sense in order to get ourselves out of a bind? "Necessity"??? Will God fault us for ending up on the wrong side, albeit out of the sincere desire to remain faithful to His Church?

For me, I have absolutely no doubt that men like Bishop Williamson, Bishop Sanborn, and Fr. Cekada ARE good men genuinely desiring a Catholic solution to this crisis, this mess we are in as a Church.

Transcending the mutual sniping and the sometimes unavoidable polemics, I genuinely do get the sense that those of us who are here are here because we want to remain Catholic. That much is clear. I just don't believe any one of us here are crazy enough to want to start a religion of his own. That said, man, these are confusing times!

Feedback is certainly welcome. God bless, everyone!    

Skunkwurxsspx,

I think the confusion on this comes from the fact that the judgment one makes of these men's claim to the pontificate is a private judgment.  None of us has the power to declare anything, or to bind other Catholics.  

The judgment is the same judgment one makes of a public criminal a crime is committed.  If you were in a bank and some men entered holding guns and demanding money, it is safe to make a judgment that these men are guilty of bring bank robbers.

In the case of these men, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, they have publicly taught heresy and grave errors against the Faith in their words and actions.

You are applying a judgment to their public acts, and drawing the appropriate conclusion, using the same process one would use with the bank robber.  

Only the legitimate authorities, the remaining lawful members of the hierarchy or the Roman Clergy can make the judgment that the See is vacant and to elect a Pope.  

The second way of determining that these men could not have been a pope is to determine to see if they have bound the Church in ways that Pope could never do.  It is impossible for a Pope to bind the universal Church to heretical or gravely erroneous teaching, evil laws, or sacramental rites.  A Pope could never do such things, the office would protect him.

Ambrose,

     Thank you kindly for your thoughtful response and the fine distinctions you make. This is just the kind of clarification I've been looking for.