The Indefectibility of the Church

[AlNg]

C. The Sedevacantist Solution
The fundamental principle of this solution is that it is impossible to identify the Novus Ordo with the Catholic Church. It is impossible, they say, because of the indefectibility of the Church in matters of faith, morals, worship and discipline.
.... The sedevacantist replies that the vacancy of the papal or episcopal see is not incompatible with the visibility of the Church, as the Church remains visible during the vacancies which have occurred at the death of every incumbent. While the length of the vacancy certainly puts the Church in turmoil, there is nothing intrinsically contrary to the nature of the Church in the vacancy of the see. [...] For the Faith, they would argue, is much more important than the visibility of the structure of the Church, i.e., there is a dependence of the visibility of the Church on the Faith of the Church, and therefore it is not sufficient for the Church?s visibility that merely any structure be visible, but rather a structure which professes the Catholic Faith. To have some visible organization which does not profess the Catholic Faith may be a visible organization, but it is not the Catholic Church.

SV say the Catholic Church is indefectible and say that the Roman Church was indefectible before Vatican II, but then near the end of Vatican II, the Roman Church defected and became a non-Catholic church? If the SV say the Church is visible, then who is the visible head of the Catholic church today? In the case of an interregnum, which has happened before many times, you still have the college of Catholic Cardinals who are able to elect a Pope. But the Cardinals since Vatican II profess allegiance to those Church leaders who the SV say are not Catholic, and are not Popes and they have not elected true popes as is done during an interregnum. If Catholic Cardinals are loyal to a false Pope and cannot elect a true Pope, then that seems to be a defection right there.

[Stubborn]

SV say the Catholic Church is indefectible and say that the Roman Church was indefectible before Vatican II, but then near the end of Vatican II, the Roman Church defected and became a non-Catholic church? If the SV say the Church is visible, then who is the visible head of the Catholic church today? In the case of an interregnum, which has happened before many times, you still have the college of Catholic Cardinals who are able to elect a Pope. But the Cardinals since Vatican II profess allegiance to those Church leaders who the SV say are not Catholic, and are not Popes and they have not elected true popes as is done during an interregnum. If Catholic Cardinals are loyal to a false Pope and cannot elect a true Pope, then that seems to be a defection right there.

The Roman Catholic Church did not become the conciliar church, rather, the Church's enemies infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church and are still within it trying to do everything they can to destroy it from within, and in the process deceive whatever of the faithful they can into believing the Church is going to be or already is destroyed. The enemies do not believe the Church is indefectible, which explains why they will never stop trying to destroy it.

Spend about 6 minutes and understand it simply as explained by Fr. Hesse....

[AlNg]

SV say the Catholic Church is indefectible and say that the Roman Church was indefectible before Vatican II, but then near the end of Vatican II, the Roman Church defected and became a non-Catholic church? If the SV say the Church is visible, then who is the visible head of the Catholic church today? In the case of an interregnum, which has happened before many times, you still have the college of Catholic Cardinals who are able to elect a Pope. But the Cardinals since Vatican II profess allegiance to those Church leaders who the SV say are not Catholic, and are not Popes and they have not elected true popes as is done during an interregnum. If Catholic Cardinals are loyal to a false Pope and cannot elect a true Pope, then that seems to be a defection right there.

The Roman Catholic Church did not become the conciliar church, rather, the Church's enemies infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church and are still within it trying to do everything they can to destroy it from within, and in the process deceive whatever of the faithful they can into believing the Church is going to be or already is destroyed. The enemies do not believe the Church is indefectible, which explains why they will never stop trying to destroy it.

Spend about 6 minutes and understand it simply as explained by Fr. Hesse....

I was responding to  the OP which gave the SV solution.  Supposing that the SV solution is correct, then who is the visible Head of the Catholic church today? If SV is true, then we have a visible Church without a visible Head and we have Cardinals who have not been able to choose a true visible Head of the Church. Father Hesse says that the missal of 1968 shows the indefectibility of the Church. but the missal of 1968, as said today by SSPX, recognizes Pope Francis as the Pope. The SV say that Francis is not the Pope, with some SV saying there is no Pope, while others have elected their own Pope. Which of the SV popes should we follow: Gregory XVII,  Michael, John Paul III, Peter II, Linus II (in 1994), Pius XIII (in 1998), Leo XIV (in 2006), Innocent XIV (in 2007), or Alexander IX (in 2007)?

[Stubborn]

I was responding to  the OP which gave the SV solution.  Supposing that the SV solution is correct, then who is the visible Head of the Catholic church today? If SV is true, then we have a visible Church without a visible Head and we have Cardinals who have not been able to choose a true visible Head of the Church. Father Hesse says that the missal of 1968 shows the indefectibility of the Church. but the missal of 1968, as said today by SSPX, recognizes Pope Francis as the Pope. The SV say that Francis is not the Pope, with some SV saying there is no Pope, while others have elected their own Pope. Which of the SV popes should we follow: Gregory XVII,  Michael, John Paul III, Peter II, Linus II (in 1994), Pius XIII (in 1998), Leo XIV (in 2006), Innocent XIV (in 2007), or Alexander IX (in 2007)?

I think even some of the sedes would say that their position is no solution to the crisis, and clearly it isn't. But what you are explaining above, Fr. Wathen, in an interview with I think Michael Dimond when he was still non-sede, more accurately explains it like this....

"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours. 

We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means  that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.

Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head, that we have a right to say that the Church has no head and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect, the only consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. That is the result of anarchism..."

[AlNg]

I was responding to  the OP which gave the SV solution.  Supposing that the SV solution is correct, then who is the visible Head of the Catholic church today? If SV is true, then we have a visible Church without a visible Head and we have Cardinals who have not been able to choose a true visible Head of the Church. Father Hesse says that the missal of 1968 shows the indefectibility of the Church. but the missal of 1968, as said today by SSPX, recognizes Pope Francis as the Pope. The SV say that Francis is not the Pope, with some SV saying there is no Pope, while others have elected their own Pope. Which of the SV popes should we follow: Gregory XVII,  Michael, John Paul III, Peter II, Linus II (in 1994), Pius XIII (in 1998), Leo XIV (in 2006), Innocent XIV (in 2007), or Alexander IX (in 2007)?

I think even some of the sedes would say that their position is no solution to the crisis, and clearly it isn't. But what you are explaining above, Fr. Wathen, in an interview with I think Michael Dimond when he was still non-sede, more accurately explains it like this....

"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours. 

We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means  that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.

Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head, that we have a right to say that the Church has no head and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect, the only consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. That is the result of anarchism..."

I am responding also to some of the points made in the first post of this thread.
I thought that the traditional Catholic teaching is that Peter will have perpetual successors: "Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores; aut Romanum Pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem; anathema sit." With this teaching of Pastor Aeternus, I don't see how you could  have six consecutive false popes and therefore no visible head to the Catholic church for this length of time.

[Stubborn]

I am responding also to some of the points made in the first post of this thread.
I thought that the traditional Catholic teaching is that Peter will have perpetual successors: "Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores; aut Romanum Pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem; anathema sit." With this teaching of Pastor Aeternus, I don't see how you could  have six consecutive false popes and therefore no visible head to the Catholic church for this length of time.

Me neither, particularly when he is and they were, all there for the whole world to see.

It's an old argument really, one that has been addressed repeatedly almost since this crisis began.
The Dimond interview with Fr. Wathen I quoted from, was from a time when the Dimond fool was not yet a sede, I think it's somewhat incredible because he not only agreed with everything Fr. said, he added papal quotes and teachings to the things that Fr. was saying that condemned sedeism.

[awkward customer]

"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours. 

We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means  that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.

This is nonsense.  Sedevacantists do no such thing.

An heretical 'pope' has already been judged - by God.  Sedevacantists recognise this, unlike your good self who has been repeating error about the Sede position for years.

Here are some of the quotes that have been posted repeatedly in answer to your nonsense.

Saint Frances de Sales, Doctor (1567-1622): "Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say [better], declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy.)

Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787): "If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant." (Verita della Fede, III, VIII. 9-10.)

Cardinal Billot (1846-1931): "Once the hypothesis that a Pope can become a known and public heretic is conceded as a possibility, it would follow that it must be admitted without hesitation that such a Pope would ipso facto lose his papal authority since, in betraying the faith, he would by his own will, have separated himself from the body of the Church."

J. Wilhelm: "The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(Heresy, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)

Sedevacantists recognise the facts and interpret them according to Catholic teaching.  A Pope cannot be a heretic.  God would not allow it.

Francis, who is an formal, public heretic, has already been judged by God and in God's eyes is not Pope.  But if you want to insist that God is wrong, then good luck to you.



 

[AlNg]

"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours. 

We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means  that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.

This is nonsense.  Sedevacantists do no such thing.

An heretical 'pope' has already been judged - by God.  Sedevacantists recognise this, unlike your good self who has been repeating error about the Sede position for years.

Here are some of the quotes that have been posted repeatedly in answer to your nonsense.

Saint Frances de Sales, Doctor (1567-1622): "Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say [better], declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy.)

Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787): "If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant." (Verita della Fede, III, VIII. 9-10.)

Cardinal Billot (1846-1931): "Once the hypothesis that a Pope can become a known and public heretic is conceded as a possibility, it would follow that it must be admitted without hesitation that such a Pope would ipso facto lose his papal authority since, in betraying the faith, he would by his own will, have separated himself from the body of the Church."

J. Wilhelm: "The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(Heresy, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)

Sedevacantists recognise the facts and interpret them according to Catholic teaching.  A Pope cannot be a heretic.  God would not allow it.

Francis, who is an formal, public heretic, has already been judged by God and in God's eyes is not Pope.  But if you want to insist that God is wrong, then good luck to you.



 

OK, but how many consecutive false Popes can you have. Already, there has been a consecutive string of six false Popes? Is it possible to have a consecutive string of seven false Popes?
Or a consecutive string of twelve false Popes?
Or a consecutive string of one hundred false Popes?
Or...
I thought it was Traditional Catholic teaching that the Catholic church must have a visible Head, who is a successor of Peter? Can you have a large consecutive string of false Popes residing in Rome, and with the approval of the Catholic hierarchy or does this violate the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the requirement for a visible Head?   

[awkward customer]

OK, but how many consecutive false Popes can you have. Already, there has been a consecutive string of six false Popes? Is it possible to have a consecutive string of seven false Popes?
Or a consecutive string of twelve false Popes?
Or a consecutive string of one hundred false Popes?
Or...
 

If you're prepared to accept the clear and much repeated teaching of Doctors, Saints, Popes and Theologians that God does not recognise a heretic as Pope, then there are no answers to your questions other that - "Wait and see."

Meanwhile, try not to let your discomfort at the consequences lead you into attacking the teaching.



       

[AlNg]

OK, but how many consecutive false Popes can you have. Already, there has been a consecutive string of six false Popes? Is it possible to have a consecutive string of seven false Popes?
Or a consecutive string of twelve false Popes?
Or a consecutive string of one hundred false Popes?
Or...
 

If you're prepared to accept the clear and much repeated teaching of Doctors, Saints, Popes and Theologians that God does not recognise a heretic as Pope, then there are no answers to your questions other that - "Wait and see."

Meanwhile, try not to let your discomfort at the consequences lead you into attacking the teaching.



       

Do you believe that there is a traditional Catholic teaching that the Catholic church has a visible Head? Would it violate traditional Catholic teaching to have a string of 300 heretical and false  non-popes consecutively, while the hierarchy maintains that these heretical and false non-popes are all true popes and true visible Heads of the Catholic church? 

[Julio]

I think even some of the sedes would say that their position is no solution to the crisis, and clearly it isn't. But what you are explaining above, Fr. Wathen, in an interview with I think Michael Dimond when he was still non-sede, more accurately explains it like this....

"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours. 

We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means  that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.

Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head, that we have a right to say that the Church has no head and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect, the only consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. That is the result of anarchism..."

I have the same take of it as you on this matter. It is an act of rebellion and assumption that God has already judged upon the charged pontiff of any violation of the Divine Law sans the pronouncement directly from Him is not only presumptive but gravely sinful because it is an act of usurpation of authority.

[Julio]

"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours. 

We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means  that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.

This is nonsense.  Sedevacantists do no such thing.

An heretical 'pope' has already been judged - by God.  Sedevacantists recognise this, unlike your good self who has been repeating error about the Sede position for years.

Here are some of the quotes that have been posted repeatedly in answer to your nonsense.

Saint Frances de Sales, Doctor (1567-1622): "Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say [better], declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy.)

Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787): "If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant." (Verita della Fede, III, VIII. 9-10.)

Cardinal Billot (1846-1931): "Once the hypothesis that a Pope can become a known and public heretic is conceded as a possibility, it would follow that it must be admitted without hesitation that such a Pope would ipso facto lose his papal authority since, in betraying the faith, he would by his own will, have separated himself from the body of the Church."

J. Wilhelm: "The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(Heresy, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)

Sedevacantists recognise the facts and interpret them according to Catholic teaching.  A Pope cannot be a heretic.  God would not allow it.

Francis, who is an formal, public heretic, has already been judged by God and in God's eyes is not Pope.  But if you want to insist that God is wrong, then good luck to you.

There is no issue about the truth of those teachings of the Catholic authorities. They are all true. However, it is not for you or any mortal to judge the Pope. That is the exclusive realm of God to do. Any act that crosses that power of God is usurpation of His authority hence the work of the devil.

[Acolyte]

This Sunday's Gospel
John 10:11-16

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.  12 But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep:  13 And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep.  14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.  15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.

 16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd

[awkward customer]

There is no issue about the truth of those teachings of the Catholic authorities. They are all true. However, it is not for you or any mortal to judge the Pope. That is the exclusive realm of God to do. Any act that crosses that power of God is usurpation of His authority hence the work of the devil.

If Francis is a formal public heretic, then God has already judged him as not the Pope.  Therefore, if Francis is a formal public heretic, he is not the Pope in God's eyes.  Therefore he is merely a man and can be judged like any other man.

It all depends on whether or not you believe Francis is a formal public heretic.

Do you?

[awkward customer]

Do you believe that there is a traditional Catholic teaching that the Catholic church has a visible Head? Would it violate traditional Catholic teaching to have a string of 300 heretical and false  non-popes consecutively, while the hierarchy maintains that these heretical and false non-popes are all true popes and true visible Heads of the Catholic church? 

Yes and yes.

But we haven't had 300 false 'popes'.  There have only been 6 so far.

But I see your dilemma.  My explanation for the current situation is that it's over.  We're at the end.  The 'one who holds' was 'taken out of the way' in 1958 so that the 'revolt', which is Vatican II, could  take place.

Cardinal Manning also identified the 'one who holds' as the Pope.

So there's no need to worry about 300 false Popes.