Sedevacantism – Pros and Cons

 Friends,

With Bergoglio, commonly called "Pope Francis", it is hard not to be a Sedevacantist. I, for one (and what's my opinion worth as a layman, whatever my background and experience, to the Catholic Powers-that-Be?) am certain that "Bergi" is not a valid pope. He's so much the heretic that there's not much left for him to do except declare a "Holy Duality" and nix the Holy Trinity, or add Muhammad to the Catholic calendar of saints. 

At this point, I think that even were his "election" incontestable, he has abandoned the office of the Papacy (he's never let himself be called "Vicar of Christ" anyway). Actually, except to those who refuse to see, Bergoglio's "election" was an installment – an imposition – by the Vatican II "Deep State" (the Freemasons in the Church, the Communists – Chinese and otherwise – the Saint Gallen Mafia, the Lavender Mafia, but I repeat myself, and so on). Yet as I say, even were his election uncontested, he's abandoned the job. Or closer to the truth, he's burned down the job and is sowing salt on the ruins. Much as Joe Biden is doing with the U.S. presidency.

But then is sedevacantism the answer? Is the papacy vacant? I think it clearly is since Benedict XVI died. But was Benedict himself a proper pope? Louie Verrecchio at AKA Catholic is a true sedevacantist. His columns are excellent, and his criticisms cogent. True "Sedes" like him usually consider Pope Pius XII to be the last valid pope, and Verrecchio can make, and does make, an excellent case about the various popes after Pope Pius being anti-popes. Some of the crazy things John Paul II occasionally did and said were very bad and unCatholic, like kissing the Koran and so much else. And of course, JP II is considered VERY orthodox by the majority of Catholics.

Most damaging of all, of course, was the insurmountable stupidity of Paul VI and JP II about the Traditional Latin Mass. Paul hated it and John Paul "just didn't get it", and how could a true pope not comprehend what the Novus Ordo represented? Or why Catholics began the wholesale abandonment of the Church after the 1960s? Their obdurateness is incredible, as the TLM was so ancient, so uplifting, so essentially Catholic; if one didn't understand its centrality to the Faith, what else did one not understand? 

Benedict did, indeed, seem to "get it" to some degree, yet then he didn't celebrate the TLM himself (that I am aware of). But we can't forgive him for running away. He should have suffered outright "red" martyrdom (as most early popes did, in fact), rather than betraying us to the eccelesial "Deep State."

Anyway, were these men NOT actual popes, then we don't have a Catholic Church, because the last priest ordained by the last bishop Pope Pius XII assigned a diocese to has probably passed away by now. Invalid, false popes cannot ordain or assign bishops, and invalid bishops cannot ordain valid priests. Therefore, Catholicism is dead.

Remember the priests exist to validly ordain the Sacraments, especially the Most Holy Eucharist. (It's by Baptism and the Holy Eucharist that we participate in all the ancient Covenants. The Covenant system God set up with the First Covenant, when He blessed Creation and established the seventh day for the remembrance of it. The Holy Eucharist, capstone of the system, is required for salvation, as St. John makes clear in the sixth chapter of his Gospel. So it can't come to an end, until The End.) And the bishops exist to ordain valid priests and keep an eye on them. And in their turn, popes exist either to ordain and assign bishops or approve the election of bishops elevated by local cathedral canons, etc., as it was in the Middle Ages and before. Actually, popes would send the pallium, a special ribbon-cloth, to a local bishop to create him as an archbishop, and the archbishop (or Metropolitan") would then manage the bishops in his ecclesiastical province. Medieval England had two such ecclesiastical provinces, while Ireland had four.   

So, if valid popes have not existed since Pius died on the 9th of October, 1958, (or I suppose since June 3rd,1963, if one assumes Roncalli was a valid pope), then the Church is an illusion, a "maya" as Buddhists say. That cannot be true, either. Not if God actually exists and if Jesus Christ is indeed God. So, how to square this circle? Maybe it is just me, but I've never seen a sedevacantist explanation of this: a clear one, concise, instantly recognizable to one's reason, as are the First Principles of Logic and the Truths of the Faith.

For my own sanity, I accept Ann Barnhardt's position that Benedict XVI was indeed pope, despite his many non-orthodox Catholic ideas (not least of which is that he could resign the governing aspect of the papacy and yet keep the position spiritually, and remain a pope, though retired – that's Bubulum Stercus to me; a true manifestation of Sterculius).

One thing is certain, my friends, what with the absolute horror of the World Youth Day (see the first half of this discussion at Lifesite News about how bad that is), we're in the most desperate times the Church has ever entered, bar none. (Yes, the Arians were bad, but the Modernists are ridiculous.) 

          AnP