I also think it is an important one.

Those who have followed me charitably know that I was very early in the “Benedict is Pope” camp.

Truly, if Ratzinger was ever pope, it seems possible that he still would be.

Over the past 2 years, I’ve learned quite a bit about Cardinal Ratzinger. The problem I have is that so very many of the things that cause me to be confident in Bergoglio’s invalidity also apply to Ratzinger.

Of course, it’s much more subtle at times, with Ratzinger. And, unlike Bergoglio, there are very solid counter narratives, and even very meaningful counter moves by Benedict himself.

For example, despite my admission of very serious actions Benedict has taken on behalf of the anti church currently occupying the Vatican (including the fact that he was the principle architect of Vatican II), if it weren’t for Ratzinger, most of us would not have fallen in love with the true Mass.

It all seems very Trump/Biden kabuki theater, to me.

But, I am a layman. 70 years ago, I was prohibited even from opining on such things, without permission.

What was true 70 years ago is still true today, and what was binding then may still bind now. So, I don’t feel comfortable making detailed “declarations.” I don’t feel that is my place. Clearly, the apostasy is now complete, but I don’t know the details of when it was complete. 1958? 1960? 1969? 1983? I don’t know.

Nevertheless, I’m free to seek explanations, and ask questions. And, while I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that I agree with quite a lot of the sedevecantist position, if I were forced to give my hypothesis, it would be far, far more organic and nuanced. It’s ultimately based on the same principles though. It ultimately ends up in the same place, in November 2021.

That said, I am very wary of people who instantly go from Vatican II charismatic to “you’re all going to hell, sede.” I’m extremely reluctant of the position, as enticing as it currently is, at least with regard to it extending all the way back to 1958. To be clear, I have no problem with the notion that the Seat is currently empty.

But, with regard to the 1958 position, there are very big questions. Important ones, like this one: https://twitter.com/JackToby1698/status/1463908672367693832?s=20

And the follow up to it here: https://twitter.com/JackToby1698/status/1464230080398381060?s=20

Therefore, I would love to read an educated and polite conversation about this specific issue in my comments. To me, this has always been a very important blank spot in the sede position.

I’d like to hear from people who are qualified to opine.

Thank you.

36 thoughts on “I Think This Is A Very Good Question.”

  2. Read this all this again. Watched Bishop Sanborn re Una cum .. Oh I’m so confused. :). Will probably read again.

    Like

    Reply

  4. Thanks for fixing that earlier comment, Michael.

    My original comment:
    A mistake in the identity of the Pope isn’t inherently sinful or schismatic.

    It only becomes an issue when your belief that a particular person is Pope requires your denial of a doctrine(s) of the Church: Unity, Holiness, Indefectibility, Infallibility, Authority etc., of the Church. Or the infallibility or authority of the Pope.

    You responded that in the 70’s and 80’s priests celebrating Una Cum *did* have to deny a doctrine of the Church.

    1) Not *everyone* did celebrated Una Cum in the 70’s & 80’s. (For example, the CMRI.)

    2) Back then, this was all brand-new and absolutely stunning to Catholics. It also took a lot longer for news to reach the average priest/lay person because there was no internet. So to first get and then process all the info, while in the state of shock and confusion, would take a while. A priest in this situation would not necessarily be denying any doctrine by naming Paul VI in the Una Cum.

    3) If no other sacraments are available, a Catholic may even receive the Last Rites from an Eastern Orthodox priest – this is according to the 1917 Code. Orthodox are condemned heretics.

    4) If the Church has not officially condemned a person (or group) as a heretic, it is licit to receive sacraments from them in some circumstances – not limited to danger of death. (This, of course assumes validity.) So someone with no access to a non-Una Cum Mass could licitly avail himself of an Una Cum Mass, if he felt that it wasn’t a danger to his faith.

    5) Personally, I choose not to receive SSPX because of the major issues with their official statements on the Church, and I do not wish to profess unity of belief with those statements.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “Or authority of the *pope” was your last clause, which is the only clause I responded to.

      The issue is the una cum. I will not deviate from it in any fashion.

      If the VII popes were antipopes, and they may have been (I’m not rejecting the notion), then there is no way around the fact that all global worship was una cum a heretic for many years.

      So, the question is: did the Church defect by offering exclusively objectionable worship for a period of time, or are the bishops of sedevecante wrong in declaring the una cum as morally objectionable.

      The second question is: if they can be so bold as to declare the only available worship globally for years as evil, why can they not be so bold in condemning an evil injection?

      Like

      Reply

      1. I didn’t think that I was deviating from the topic?

        While having no wish to disagree with any bishop, I do agree with Bishop Pivarunas on the subject of the Una Cum (he basicaĺy disagrees with Bishops Sanborn and Dolan).

        That has been my point from the beginning. The Una Cum, by itself, means nothing.

        In the context that the Una Cum celebrant also publicly professes heresy, it becomes very problematic. But even in that case, it is not strictly forbidden to receive Una Cum sacraments for 2 basic reasons: 1) the Church has not officialy declared the Novus Ordo sect to be hèretical or its ministers to be heretics and 2) the salvation of souls is the highest law.

        And, no, the Church did not defect.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

                  1. LOL. As I said, he threw a fit and blocked me because I politely disagreed with his doctrinal view that Catholics must vote for Trump … but I can read him in the WordPress viewer. I think it’s hilarious that he obviously hates admitting that, because, if he doesn’t, the whole thing falls apart.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    Reply

                    2. Even more sadly, most of the sede community, at least the ones who started threads renouncing me for leading people to hell, based their position on a Google translate of Pope Pius XII’s discourse on voting and civic duties.

                      Google got just a couple words incorrect, so the message conveyed was opposite to what he really said.

                      True story: it was a sedevecantist who sent me the correct interpretation and allowed me to go through the steps to figure out what happened.

                      But, when Google, Novus Ordo Watch (who is usually worthy of respect), and the Vatican website all agree … well, let’s just say I didn’t think it was worth having it transcribed by an Italian translator.

                      Liked by 1 person

  7. Hi Michael.
    Let me say I used to follow you on the tweeters and was upset when you left. Fortunately the twitter breadcrumbs brought me to your blog here, which I like even better and am so happy to have found!

    Anyway, I think the best, most detailed exposition of the Sede proposition is outlined in the Cassiciacum, or Sedeprivationist thesis of Gerard des Lauriers – brilliant cleric, approved theologian, and consultant to Pius XII. He was also instrumental in forming the doctrine of The Assumption, which we know Pius promulgated in the 1950s.

    The CT/SP offers many good explanations of HOW things in the Church got to where they are at this point. It shows that there is no definitive moment that we can point to as to when the teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church were taken over by the N.O. (which cannot properly be called a Church, anyway, as it never declared itself separate and apart from Catholicism) .
    The creep of errors was slow and long, until there was nothing BUT heresy and no longer an authority unaffected by it, who would step in and put an end to it. The Holy Ghost’s flight from the N.O. to the true Tabernacles became a fait accompli at some point, but no point in time can really be determined as THE time when it happened. That is one of the main bones of contention between Traditionalists of the Sede proposition, although we believe the same bottom line. There is just too much arguing over the who and the when, which is a pretty fruitless exercise.
    Some of the best proponents of the Cassiciacum thesis are Bishop Sanborn and Father Desposito at Most Holy Trinity Seminary. There are others such as the IMBC in Europe.
    A search of their names/keyword: Cassiciacum thesis will lead you to the info.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  8. Below is a text I wrote 2 or 3 years ago. My argument is based on an analysis of the events in the Vatican, numerous prophecies, and in particular on the prophecy about the popes. The Lord Jesus gave this prophecy to Saint Malachi so long ago that the Church had a tool to recognize the signs of the times, let me say more, He gave us a kind of calendar of events. The passage of time is here marked with the names of the popes and even the antipopes (there are 10 on this list).
    ……………………………….
    The ‘B&B16’ Duo
    The confusion that can be seen in the Roman Catholic church is not a crisis but an epochal breakthrough.
    The last papal decision of Benedict XVI led to the transformation of the Saint Peter’s Office into a synodal two-headed hybrid. Actually he dissolved – by virtue of power given to him by Jesus Christ [Matt 16, 19] – the same office on Feb. 28, 2013 at 8 p.m. (CET), so no he may already be a Roman Pontiff neither himself nor anyone else. This decision is irrevocable.
    The dissolution of the papacy does not mean that the gates of hell have overcome the militant Church [Matt 16, 18]. The Church will be reborn with the power of God as it was when the Mosaic religion degenerated into the form of the synagogue of Satan and Jesus Christ appeared to breathe new life into the Church of God and raise her to a higher level thrugh the Holy Sacraments.
    By the act of Feb. 10 (11), 2013, B16 released the keys of the God’s Kingdom that Christ entrusted to Saint Peter the Apostle. These Keys are the Apocalyptic Woman and the Paraclete; only now the Church will shine on the whole earth with full splendor.

    The end of the papacy in Rome is precisely described in the Prophecy of Saint Malachi (+ 1148), the archbishop of Armagh:

    ‘Gloria Olivae’ – Benedict XVI; the glory/finial of the Roman Catholic church are two olive trees [Rev. 11, 4], which will blossom only now at the end of times – the Paraclete and the Woman of the Revelation.

    ‘In persecutione extrema S.R.E. Sedebit’ – ‘S.R.E [Sancta Romana Ecclesia] is in a period of extreme persecution’ – this is the phenomenon of Jorge Bergoglio, the destroyer of the Roman Catholic Church. Bergoglio, aside from the B16’s dissolution of the papacy, as an apostate, could not be the vicar of Jesus Christ, and therefore Saint Malachi does not name his name among pontifices but only characterizes the effects of his actions.

    ‘Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur & Iudex tremendus iudicabit populum suum. Finis’. (“Peter the Roman will feed his flock in the midst of many persecutions, and when it ceases, the city of seven hills will be torn down and a terrible judge will judge his people”.)
    Saint Peter the Apostle was not a Roman (citizen of Rome). Peter the Roman is a Son of the Roman Catholic Church (means a Roman) and is identical to the terrible Judge, the same as the Paraclete.
    The papacy in Rome was abolished definitively and irrevocably. What now? The fulfillment of this request addressed to God the Father for nearly 2,000 years: ‘Come Thy Kingdom, thy will be done, as in heaven so also on earth’. The Kingdom of God on the earth, finally!

    Nov. 26th, San Leonardo da Porto Maurizio

    P.S.
    The position of the sedevacantists is untenable in view of the Prophecy of the Popes.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  9. I’ll throw my hat into the ring, though I fear I’ll say something that sounds heretical.

    The thing that I fall back on is that the Church consists mostly of God the Trinity, the angels and those who have passed into blessed eternity. Even if every last man in Rome were a formal heretic, the former have unlimited veto over the latter (especially considering that God is the one in charge).

    I think too many people are invested in the fact that God works through secondary causes (i.e. institutions and the clergy) that they have substituted the tool for the Craftsman; they mistake the icon for the Person it has meant to represent.

    Which brings us to our present crisis–Tradistan has told itself repeatedly “The Church is indefectible” which is an unfalsifiable (hypo)thesis. If, in the course of a century, the Church transforms from something Church-y to a UN-aligned NGO with a mitre, holding the thesis “The Church is indefectible” forces the observer to make one of two conclusions. First, that the Church got it wrong for 1900 years OR that the Church has got it wrong now.

    Forgive me if I err. When I left Protestantism over a decade ago, the one thing that made me choose Orthodoxy over Catholicism was that it intuitively made more sense to me that no man is infallible, regardless of whatever office he has been given. And when I returned to Rome in 2016, I didn’t do so because I was a huge fan of Bergoglio. I just saw that there was real value in the True Church even as Christ’s enemies hollowed out the earthly institutions from within.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  10. I am sure there are many more knowledgeable people here to comment.
    I accept sede vacante, therefore I may have a little insight, however due to some of your points and others, I personally do not feel obligated to try to convert people to becoming sedevacantists. I prefer to limit myself to Bergoglio is not Catholic or Pope, and if people are interested or even accept this, only then will I further discuss sedevacantism.

    There is also some disunity within the sedevacantists thus making discussions less than definitive of the group as a whole. Until there is unity, consensus in a debate may be difficult to reach. I say that out of respect to all camps, and recognise I have no authority to define anything for people.

    In my opinion all Catholics believe the Church cannot teach error, therefore using this reasoning, I can only conclude Vatican II did not come from the Catholic Church.
    Another basic agreement amongst sedevacantists is that there has been no Pope since either Roncalli or Pope Pius XII. Why the confidence to say this publicly?

    Until 70 years ago, we had properly ordained Priests & Bishops who were free to take remedial action against Anti-Popes etc, allowing laymen to attend the Latin Mass and happily keep quiet in faith.

    Without validly elected Priests or Bishops in the Novus Ordo Sect to take remedial action today, I do not accept laymen are prohibited from commenting on the actions of these imposter laymen pretending to be Popes or Priests.

    Bellarmine defined the one true church as:
    ‘the community of men brought together by the profession of the same Christian faith and conjoined in the communion of the same sacraments, under the government of the legitimate pastors and especially the one vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman pontiff.’

    As Catholics, Sedevacantists subscribe to this statement, while the Novus Ordo Sect have dumped the Vicar of Christ to their footnotes. Who the heretics are is clear.

    Laymen are not under the government of this imposter hierarchy of the Novus Ordo Sect.
    Sedevacantists I’ve listened to firmly agree with you that what was true 70years ago is true today. I therefore do not question the properly ordained Priests & Bishops of the sedevacantists or SSPX once they also adhere to Church Doctrine and even the continuity of faith, which is not what the Vatican II teaches with their own brand of discontinuity of faith.

    I make one exception as it pertains to the identity of the Pope. I cannot understand & therefore cannot accept the SSPX claim that Bergoglio is Pope, or their status of being in communion with the Novus Ordo Sect.
    Their stance can only spread error to the laity, and jeopardise the salvation of souls.

    If Bergoglio was Pope, then shouldn’t the SSPX endorse their Pontiffs request that we inject murdered babies into our arteries?
    If I am 90 years old without access to the truth of the trickery, then the consequence is diminished. For those of us with access to the abundance of evidence that we’re being tricked, then we are not be free from any consequence, and would need to repent to balance out the mortal sin.
    If Sedevacantist Clergy do not makes this clear, then they definitely should, however as they have made it abundantly clear to all and sundry who can hear that Bergoglio is not Pope, their laity are not at any risk of following Bergoglio, unlike the risk to the laity in the SSPX.
    That’s the crucial distinction.

    After so many decades of rotten fruit from Vatican II, I am unsympathetic to providing benefit of the doubt to the SSPX on this point of consequence. Make it clear he is not Pope, and make it clear to avoid the errors of the Novus Ordo.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. About 1958, all people need to read the evidence about the enclave to elect the successor to Pope Pius XII.
      There’s too much evidence to list here.
      A select couple;
      1. Sister Lucy.org have posted the cables from the US Ambassador from the Vatican saying to do all in their power to obstruct the election of Cardinal Siri, and 2 other conservative Cardinals based upon their unhelpfulness with US political goals. This is motive to commit a crime.
      2. White smoke came out of the Sistine Chapel for 5 and a half minutes, even a Cardinal left the enclave “early” under penalty of excommunication saying we had a new Pope, for which he was excommunicated, although this was later rescinded. The chief guard at the door to the enclave also said we had a new Pope. To me it’s unbelievable to say they accidentally burnt dry timber for that long. It does not explain the Cardinal leaving early, who wasn’t dependent on the colour of smoke to know what was happening.

      It appears the synagogue of satan used the US to subvert the election of Cardinal Siri, an fervent anti-communist, who it is claimed had accepted his own election taking the name Pope Gregory XVII.

      A compelling theory for the reason for this diabolical subversion of the enclave was to make sure Roncalli was invalidly elected, so that he could not receive the sacrament from his ordination as Pope, which would have converted him to Catholicism.

      Roncalli then vetoed the Virgin Mary’s instruction to reveal the 3rd secret of Fatima, detailing the spread of errors of Russia. Would a true Pope do this? I think not.
      Occam’s razor suggests he’s the guilty hand for switching Sister Lucia with a most unholy woman.

      The 1958 enclave was the pivotal moment, the coup d’état. The synagogue of satan have since kept secret the 3rd secret, they abducted & replaced Ss Lucia, they did the Vatican II heresy, they wrote a new Lutheran mass abomination, and invalidated the Priestly & Episcopal Rites.

      If one accepts the above, then I think it is natural to reject wholly the Novus Ordo Sect since 1958 as an evil entity. That is how Sedevacantists arrive at their decision.
      If one does not accept the above as being beyond all reasonable doubt, then I understand why they are reticent to vocalise their opinions.

      However the sysnagogue of satan’s actions in gaining Roncalli’s invalid election explains everything so perfectly in my mind, while I have not found no reasonable doubt anywhere to dispute it.
      If someone provides evidence for another situation, I will hear it.

      Roncalli’s appointment of Montini as Cardinal is also invalid. That is not the reason Montini was not Pope, as Bishops can be elected Pope in certain situations. Montini’s public displays of apostasy have only been rivalled by Bergoglio. I read Fr. Luigi Villa say he was commissioned by Padre Pio to expose the freemasons in the Church. He recounted a french freemason who said Roncalli & Montini joined the parisian lodge on the same day. He published a 70odd page article listing most of the evils of Montini. Shocking read.

      After Montini, the 1978 enclave electors were appointed as follows;
      3 by Pope Pius XII
      8 by Pope John XXIII
      101 by Pope Paul VI
      3 validly elected Cardinals cannot elect a Pope. The 0 validly elected Cardinals did not elect Ratzinger.
      Even with apostates like Wojtyla Catholic invalidly elected, then according to Church Law they would be Pope if no one ever questioned their elections. Importantly, there have been Priests like Fr. Barbara & Fr. De Pauw who publicly opposed the Novus Ordo and the elections of these Novus Ordo imposters since the 60’s. Therefore the invalid elections of the Novus Ordo Popes were not accepted by all of the Clergy.

      I imagine that Church Law was intended for use in the event of a single Anti-Pope, not 6 in a row..

      Like

      Reply

    2. Thanks Pat. I’m specifically curious about the period of time after Vatican II and before the Sedevecantist position began, with regard to the notion that the only Masses offered were those that are offensive to God.

      Like

      Reply

      1. There was another topic that started that thread, so I assumed it was a general discussion. Apologies for spamming your timeline!

        https://novusordowatch.org/2021/01/eyewitness-to-modernist-revolution/
        Sr. Bernadette discussed that period within her interview and touched on how their Priests reacted, it’s a nice interview but her account doesn’t reach the depth of debate you called for.

        At the time, Fr. de Pauw was a Professor of Theology and Canon Law, and a theological advisor at VII. He founded the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in 1964, which was publicly launched in 1965 to counteract the errors of Vatican II.

        He wrote in 1975 “ever since 1968 when, as a result of the erroneous interpretations and implementations of the Second Vatican Council’s decisions, the centuries-old Sacrifice of the Mass became threatened with extinction, the C.T.M., as the Movement is commonly known, has concentrated its efforts on the maintaining of the completely unchanged Latin Roman Catholic Mass, sometimes called the “Tridentine” Mass, as ordered “in perpetuity” by St. Pope Pius V in 1570.”

        The above quote perhaps doesn’t hit the mark, but the intent is clearly visible, Fr. de Pauw had his finger on the pulse, he knew Vatican II was producing bad fruit. His publications could contain more precise details.

        You’ve also said before that there have been 42 Anti-Popes in history, therefore there have been these same illicit masses offered to God before, and the Church survived them all with the faith intact as it was before said Anti-Popes, because the record was corrected as required.

        Is this not part of the indefectibility of the Church that will last to the end of time?
        We don’t go overboard sick on the rotten fruit of Anti-Popes, but we throw the Anti-Pope & his rotten fruit overboard.

        Therefore I view the timespan just as more important. How long is it reasonable to wait before calling bad fruit, bad?
        My understanding is that once you overrun this timeframe, only then will the offence grow in severity.
        In the point about Anti-Popes, if no one questions their validity, they became valid after a period of time. This period of time is not defined, so we don’t know if it is 10years, 15, or 2?
        We have seen a valid Pope wipe the records of Anti-Popes they succeeded, so there is a yardstick to consult here.
        We err, but how long we err is can be more concerning.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. To be clear, I don’t think the issue necessarily threatens to discredit the sedevecantist position. It may, however, discredit the sedevecantist position on the una cum.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Haha, touché!
            I had a feeling the point you were touching strengthened your position, and weakened my own on the Una Cum! But I don’t mind at all, as long as we always strive for the truth no matter where it leads.

            I still think the timeframe is part of the discussion. The una cum isn’t the same problem when the error is only beginning, and we cannot yet properly judge their fruit.
            So much has come out recently as to surely make the bad fruit impossible to deny.

            That’s where I see the issue with the una cum. I agree it is nuanced, and certainly not concrete.
            Many did not know what Roncalli or Montini were up to, but we all know what Bergoglio is up to, shouldn’t that weigh into it as well?

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Not objectively speaking. It’s either inherently objectionable or it’s not. If it’s inherently objectionable, then the entire Church offered exclusively inherently objectionable worship for a time. My point goes to indefectability, not culpability.

              Like

              Reply

              1. I once read of some small errors that had slipped through uncorrected from time to time, but as the course remained unchanged for the salvations of souls, they did not alter the indefectibility of the Church’s teaching.
                Sadly they did not mention what the errors were where I read that, which would have been interesting to have for this discussion.

                Like

                Reply

  12. Michael, I am not qualified to opine on this but… I have the same questions. I am conflicted with Ratzinger as well. It is disturbing to say the least that Ratzinger was the architect of Vatican II. God, can change hearts. This is what I am relying on….

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  13. Although I am definitely not qualified to enter into any discussions on this, I am looking forward to learning more of the sede perspective. Of late, I’ve become more and more interested in them and their beliefs. I hope you receive many responses.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  14. Hello Michael,

    I would like to read your post, but when I click the link, there’s nothing there.

    By the way,, I enjoyed your woodworking pictures.

    Sandra Elam

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment