Questions for Non-Sedevacantists

[Bonaventure]

1. Do you think Francis is orthodox? If so, why and how?

2. How do you view sedevacantists? Mistaken? Schismatic? "Protestant?"

3. Do you think a sedevacantism is possible? If so, what else would need to happen for you to embrace such a position? (For example, many people drew their line in the sand with John Paul II's canonization).

4. Do you think that the Novus Ordo Missae/Vatican II documents are orthodox? Are they licit? Are they Catholic?

5. If they items in #4 are not orthodox, valid, or licit, how do you reconcile this with indefectibility and the universal, ordinary magisterium.

6. Would you attend the Mass of a sedevacantist priest? Would you receive communion? (This need not be a sedevacantist order or group. For example, I know of multiple diocesan clergy who do not name Bergoglio in the Canon).

[Maximilian]

1. Do you think Francis is orthodox? If so, why and how?
    No.

2. How do you view sedevacantists? Mistaken? Schismatic? "Protestant?"
    Mistaken. Hyper-ultra-montanist.

3. Do you think a sedevacantism is possible?
    Yeah, when you don't elect a pope. Once you elect a pope, then the seat is no longer vacant.

4. Do you think that the Novus Ordo Missae/Vatican II documents are orthodox? Are they licit? Are they Catholic?
    No. No. No.

5. If they items in #4 are not orthodox, valid, or licit, how do you reconcile this with indefectibility and the universal, ordinary magisterium.
    Indefectibility is a joke invented only at the end of the 19th century in order to cover up the failure of the even bigger joke of infallibility.

6. Would you attend the Mass of a sedevacantist priest? Would you receive communion?
Yes. Yes.

A sedevacantist priest, with whom I disagree over just about everything in his sermons, and sedevacantism is by far the least of it, is an excellent confessor.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

1. Do you think Francis is orthodox? If so, why and how?

No

2. How do you view sedevacantists? Mistaken? Schismatic? "Protestant?"

Mistaken.  Hyperpapalist.  If they're right, then we haven't had a Pope in centuries.

3. Do you think a sedevacantism is possible? If so, what else would need to happen for you to embrace such a position? (For example, many people drew their line in the sand with John Paul II's canonization).

Possible in theory.  Benevacantism is much more plausible than sedevacantism, but only because of the questions about Benedict's resignation and questions about whether the St. Gallen Group conspiracy violated the rules of conclave.  It's not about the duration.  It's about the reasoning.

4. Do you think that the Novus Ordo Missae/Vatican II documents are orthodox? Are they licit? Are they Catholic?

NO = As written, it is lacking but not explicitly heterodox.  As celebrated, it is a wreck.  Liceity is above my pay grade.
VII = Ambiguous but not explicitly heterodox; can be interpreted in continuity if one tries hard enough.

5. If they items in #4 are not orthodox, valid, or licit, how do you reconcile this with indefectibility and the universal, ordinary magisterium.

Indefectibility doesn't enter into the question.  Infallibility prevents the Church from producing binding dogmatic or doctrinal teachings.  The liturgy is clearly neither of those.

6. Would you attend the Mass of a sedevacantist priest? Would you receive communion? (This need not be a sedevacantist order or group. For example, I know of multiple diocesan clergy who do not name Bergoglio in the Canon).

No.

[Melkite]

1. Do you think Francis is orthodox? If so, why and how?

No

2. How do you view sedevacantists? Mistaken? Schismatic? "Protestant?"

Schismatic.  Protestant in nature, not theology.

3. Do you think a sedevacantism is possible? If so, what else would need to happen for you to embrace such a position? (For example, many people drew their line in the sand with John Paul II's canonization).

Only as an interregnum.  Which, if sedevacantism is true, I guess this would just be an abnormally long interregnum.  However, the longer the interregnum is, the more absurd the papal claims are, imo.  I don't see how Christ could have intended for there to be a necessary head of his Church on earth that all must submit to if the head's seat could remain vacant for decades.  At this point, a whole generation of Catholics have lived and begun dying without there ever being a pope?  Seems ridiculous to me.

4. Do you think that the Novus Ordo Missae/Vatican II documents are orthodox? Are they licit? Are they Catholic?

I've never read them, but from what I know of them, I think they can be understood in an orthodox way.  If they can be orthodox, then they can be valid and licit.

5. If they items in #4 are not orthodox, valid, or licit, how do you reconcile this with indefectibility and the universal, ordinary magisterium.

You can't.  The two together are logically impossible.  If Vatican II was a true departure from the faith, then the Church is defectible and Christ was a liar.

6. Would you attend the Mass of a sedevacantist priest? Would you receive communion? (This need not be a sedevacantist order or group. For example, I know of multiple diocesan clergy who do not name Bergoglio in the Canon).

No.  Wouldn't receive communion either.  I would sooner receive communion from an Orthodox priest.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

No.  Wouldn't receive communion either.  I would sooner receive communion from an Orthodox priest.

There's no coherent reasoning that would justify this position.

[Baylee]

2. How do you view sedevacantists? Mistaken? Schismatic? "Protestant?"

This question is unfair and leading.  Now that someone has responded that they think sedes are schismatic, I feel the need to say something.  What they say is against the rules, but they are only responding to your question. Maybe you should remove that question in your OP?

[Michael Wilson]

By reading the responses from those who do not favor the sede position; it is manifest that in order to hold to their own views: 1. They do not understand Church doctrine on Ecclesiology or 2. Understanding it, they prefer to reject it.
That is why I had to embrace the sede position from the former R&R view that I held; the latter is doctrinally untenable. The logic of R&R leads one either to reject the Catholic Church as the one true Church founded by Our Divine Savior or to return and embrace the Conciliar church. Sooner or latter one has to fall on one side of the fence one is dancing on or the other.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

By reading the responses from those who do not favor the sede position; it is manifest that in order to hold to their own views: 1. They do not understand Church doctrine on Ecclesiology or 2. Understanding it, they prefer to reject it.

It is clear to me that sedes do not understand Church doctrine on infallibility, or, understanding it, they prefer to reject it.

In sede world, infallibility is not a negative charism with limits.  In sede world, infallibility is a supercharism that effectively guarantees that a human could never legitimately hold the office of Pope.

[Melkite]

No.  Wouldn't receive communion either.  I would sooner receive communion from an Orthodox priest.

There's no coherent reasoning that would justify this position.

Sure there is.  I'm an Eastern Catholic.  The sedes, imo, are, in many ways, in a similar position to the Orthodox.  Both have valid sacraments.  Both have apostolic succession (though I think it may be dubious with some sede priests - something I'd need to look more into). Both reject the pope as having any authority over them (I find "he isn't really the pope!" to be an excuse for one's rebellion).  Sedes largely have chosen their schism, whereas Orthodox were mostly born into theirs.  The Orthodox likely have less personal culpability for being in schism.  So it would be at least slightly better for me to receive from an Orthodox priest than a sede priest.

If you have points to the contrary, I'll certainly consider them.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

I find "he isn't really the pope!" to be an excuse for one's rebellion.

You read hearts now?  I think it's much more reasonable to take them at their word.  They can be wrong without being culpable, just like the Orthodox.

The Orthodox likely have less personal culpability for being in schism.  So it would be at least slightly better for me to receive from an Orthodox priest than a sede priest.

"Look how good these people are because they were born that way."

It is not based in objective reality.  Sedes believe in the papacy and all Catholic doctrine.  They just believe that the papacy hasn't been occupied in 70 years.  Orthodox reject the papacy and a great number of doctrines.

Like I said, I wouldn't receive Holy Communion from a sede, but receiving from an Orthodox priest isn't justified by logic.  This idea is supported only by muh feels.

[LausTibiChriste]

Suggesting it's based on muh feels fits exactly into the "reading hearts" accusation that you accused Melkite of.

The Trad understanding of Orthodoxy is so skewed I don't even know where to begin (to be fair, Orthodox understanding of Catholicism is so f***ed I also don't know where to begin).


I'm with Melkite though, I'd sooner receive from an Orthodox priest than a Sede.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Suggesting it's based on muh feels fits exactly into the "reading hearts" accusation that you accused Melkite of.

Hardly.  It's not based in logic, and this is easy to demonstrate.  If a modernist churchman were attempting to justify this illogic, I can promise you that the word "pastoral" would appear in his explanation.

The Orthodox might have valid sacraments, but they deny vast swathes of true doctrine.

The sedes have valid sacraments and don't deny any doctrines.

Both camps have members who were "born into it".

[LausTibiChriste]

Guess I'll give my $0.02 CAD

1. Do you think Francis is orthodox? If so, why and how?

Heretical anti-Popes are by definition anti-Popes

2. How do you view sedevacantists? Mistaken? Schismatic? "Protestant?"

Depends. If it comes to Frank, it's obvious. The ones denying John XXIII onward, I've never seen a proper argument. But then again I'm starting to doubt the validity of NO sacraments so what do I know?

3. Do you think a sedevacantism is possible? If so, what else would need to happen for you to embrace such a position? (For example, many people drew their line in the sand with John Paul II's canonization).

Anything's possible. Christ (literally God) died, the Jews spent 40 years wandering the desert. In retrospect the time since V2 is relatively short, so I guess it could be possible. JP2s election to disprove the post-V2 papacies is silly. All canonization means is that dude is in Heaven...that's IT.

4. Do you think that the Novus Ordo Missae/Vatican II documents are orthodox? Are they licit? Are they Catholic?

Orthodox? No
Licit? Maybe, but barely and only out of God's abundant mercy
Catholic? No.

5. If they items in #4 are not orthodox, valid, or licit, how do you reconcile this with indefectibility and the universal, ordinary magisterium.

I don't know how to answer this, honestly.

6. Would you attend the Mass of a sedevacantist priest? Would you receive communion? (This need not be a sedevacantist order or group. For example, I know of multiple diocesan clergy who do not name Bergoglio in the Canon).

Maybe and no.

[LausTibiChriste]

Suggesting it's based on muh feels fits exactly into the "reading hearts" accusation that you accused Melkite of.

Hardly.  It's not based in logic, and this is easy to demonstrate.  If a modernist churchman were attempting to justify this illogic, I can promise you that the word "pastoral" would appear in his explanation.

The Orthodox might have valid sacraments, but they deny vast swathes of true doctrine.

The sedes have valid sacraments and don't deny any doctrines.

Both camps have members who were "born into it".

You are not born into Sedevacantism the same way you are born into Orthodoxy - to think so would be foolish. A person born and raised in a sede parish in Ohio, for example, has infinitely more chances to become acquainted with non-sede Catholicism than even a city dweller in Moscow.

Also your position is not logicial at all. If it is, please, state the logic.

The Orthodox do not deny "Vast swathes" of true doctrine...a statement that's more or less slander considering what Russian Catholics, Melkites and Chaldeans believe..all in union with Rome - a Rome which allows, for example, the veneration of St Sergius of Radonezh. Such black and white statements are exactly why, from both camps, we have no chance on communion anytime soon. Nuance is clearly not a word in your lexicon.

[awkward customer]

3. Do you think a sedevacantism is possible? If so, what else would need to happen for you to embrace such a position? (For example, many people drew their line in the sand with John Paul II's canonization).

Only as an interregnum.  Which, if sedevacantism is true, I guess this would just be an abnormally long interregnum.  However, the longer the interregnum is, the more absurd the papal claims are, imo.  I don't see how Christ could have intended for there to be a necessary head of his Church on earth that all must submit to if the head's seat could remain vacant for decades.  At this point, a whole generation of Catholics have lived and begun dying without there ever being a pope?  Seems ridiculous to me.

But you're putting limits on what Christ might have intended and how we are to view a 65 year period without a Pope in view of the devastation caused by Vatican II and the Modernism that it embodies.

What sounds ridiculous to you might be wise in God's eyes. 

Christ has given us all we need to discern what's going through the warnings contained in  2Thess2.   65 years without a Pope should leave us in no doubt that we are witnessing the warnings by St Paul come true.

Bergoglio is the 6th pope of the Revolt.  Is it a coincidence that while Bergoglio blessed, in the Vatican, the demon goddess Pachamama who demanded child sacrifice, the child mutilating trans ideologues were coming out in force?

This is no mere interregnum.