CathInfo.com

Yes, but for the Resistance to go sede, Bp. Williamson would have to go sede, and the problem with that is that the SAJM would not likely go along with it. There would be a serious division.

It's not about going sedevacantist per se, but about getting to the point where the Church would repudiate Bergoglio and then even those who hold to the John of St. Thomas and Cajetan positions would have their criteria met.  Bishop Williamson has said that it's possible Bergoglio is not the pope, Avrille that it's not an unreasonable position, and Father Chazal holds Bergoglio to be an impounded heretic with no authority merely awaiting deposition by the Church.

Unless he's called by God, Vigano cannot attempt to do more to oust Bergog. It remains unproven that one man can call a council to depose a pope because he's a heretic.  Unless God calls for it specifically.  It's one thing to see Bergog is spouting heresy, it's another for a person or persons to do something about it.  Who's going to listen to him/them?  A few hundred or thousand trads?  Another problem is the cardinals will elect the same or worse.  What is Vigano going to do? Force good cardinals to vote, and forbid bad cardinals from voting?  Vigano is not in a position to manipulate that many circuмstances in the Church with his level of authority, even for Her betterment. He's humbly calling Catholics to prayer and penance for the remaining chastisement still to come.  Because God allows such things to His greater glory, it won't be just a man or men who fixes this. 

Well said. I think that God doesn't want the Crisis to end.

It's probably as you say: He's humbly calling us to prayer and penance for the chastisement still to come. 

I think most people who currently hold him in high regard would drop him like a hot potato if he went sede.

Disagree, and here's why:

The big "hangup" I and other R&R types have with the current sedes are these:

1) Bellarmine vs JST/Cajetan, et al.
2) We have issues with violating UPA;
3) We have issues with any declarations/depositions which would not come from the hierarchy (similar but distinct from #1).

BUT

My "Fantasy thread" resolved all those "hangups" by either satisfying them or making them moot issues:

To Problem #1: We fear to side with St. Bellarmine, because on the one hand, there is a dispute that he has been properly understood by the sedes, and on the other hand, supposing he was properly translated and interpreted, what if he is wrong?

But supposing somehow that the bishops would follow JST/Cajetan/Suarez's method (i.e., First declaring the fact of Francis's heresy, then in a second declaration, declaring that God has deposed Francis for heresy), then in concreto, the debate over St. Bellarmine vs JST/Cajetan/Suarez becomes both academic and moot, because in fact, there would be no pope:

Universal peaceful asssent that Francis is NOT pope is just as infallible as that same universal assent saying he IS pope.

But even 5% of cardinals and bishops rejecting Francis would destroy UPA, and with it, the obligations we feel to honor the legitimacy of Francis's pontificate.  More on this below...


To Problem #2: Were a quality minority of bishops and cardinals to lobby for a declaration of Francis's heresy (the first step in JST/Cajetan's "method"), then UPA would effectively cease.  5% of the world's bishops and cardinals would suffice to dissolve UNIVERSAL (i.e., moral universality) assent.  At that point, people who were previously non-sede would be at ease of conscience to become sedes, since the UPA argument vanishes into thin air, AND it is the Church which is running the process (Keep in mind: It is not the bishops and cardinals deposing the pope!  It is the Cardinals and bishops declaring the fact of Francis's heresy, and in a second declaration that GOD has deposed him).


To Problem #3: We believe only those with jurisdiction can make this process legitimate.  We know some of the sedes dispute this.  No matter: So long as cardinals and bishops with jurisdiction did in fact begin and conclude this process, there is no reason for sedes to oppose it: They still get what they wanted, while R&R also get what they wanted, and both are happy.  The argument over whether jurisdiction was necessary, as with Problem #1, becomes merely academic and moot.

This is why I think that R&R would support a declaration of sedevacante, so long as the process worked out this way: The process removes the danger of error, which all R&R prudently apprehend.

In my Fantasy Thread, I laid out a scenario which could start this ball rolling.

I chose ++Burke precisely because he has jurisdiction (with +Vigano being the mastermind behind the scenes, and supplying the doctrinal firepower).

Once UPA is destroyed, +Vigano is elected Pope, and we are back to the GWS, with competing claimants, none of which enjoy UPA, but it is necessary to pass through this phase until one side or another gains UPA.

The Fantasy Thread lays out a scenario as to how +Vigano and his successor build momentum which eventually wins for them the UPA needed, and restores the Church from the top down.