Sedevacantism In Waiting.



I know it seems absurd, but apparently there are people around who think they aren't Sedevacantists because they think Benedict is the Pope. What they are, is Sedevacantists In Waiting.

Let us leave aside the absurdity of saying that Benedict is Pope when he himself says it is absurd to think so. Let us imagine Benedict has been, say, hypnotised to say so. Or they have threatened to kill his cat. Or something like that.

If Benedict is Pope and Francis isn't, the latter's appointment are invalid. Not only those of the bishops, but those of the Cardinals, too. Therefore, the next conclave will take place with a number of invalidly appointed Cardinals, and I am unable to see how from such a conclave a legitimate Pope might be elected.

Then, at some point Benedict will die, and the Benedictsedists will have to recognise that the Sea is vacant. Then, at some point, Francis will die or resign too, and the now Benedictsedevacantist will have to recognise that his successor is a bogus Pope elected by bogus Cardinals in an invalid conclave. Then at some point – actually rather fast now – all the Cardinals appointed by JP II and Benedict XVI would be above eighty and as such, according to the rule of those same Popes, would lose the right to elect a Pope. Therefore, there would be no Cardinals who can elect a Pope, no mechanism to elect new ones, and no authority that could give validity to whatever new method to elect a Pope.

We would, therefore, be in a situation of utter impasse, for which no solution can be found within Church rules that would allow to get out of it.

Mind, Popes were not always elected by Cardinals. But they were always elected in recognisable harmony with the will of their predecessors. Who could, now, say with any authority what this will is, and therefore which rules shall apply? Shall those Bishops elect the Pope, who have accepted to serve under illegitimate Popes? Who will decide Francis' bishops are to be excluded? How many pre-Francis bishops will remain in a decade or two? Shall we make a poll among pre-Francis priests, instead? Those who have deemed Francis and his successor Popes, you mean? How long until they are gone, too? Shall we elect the new Pope in a worldwide election, then? Paper poll? Internet? Who will organise it? Shall women be allowed to vote? How about those baptised by Francis' non-priests?

No, this is all absurd. So absurd in fact, that one wonders how the Benedictsedists can utter such outlandish ideas without looking three inches beyond their own nose.

Benedict has resigned. He is not the reigning Pope anymore. Volens nolens, Francis is Pope. An atrocious one, I'll give you that; but the Pope elected from largely atrocious Cardinals, selected among largely atrocious Bishops, selected among largely atrocious clergy, produced from largely atrocious seminars, ruined from a largely atrocious Council.

You can turn it and twist it as much as you like, but in the end Francis is the undeniable product of the visible Church. His legitimacy is universally recognised through all the layers of that organisation we and all our ancestors have called “the Church”. There is no way we can call a fantasy parallel reality into existence, that would declare the real reality a scam and bogus organisation. There is no way any of us can decide, whilst in a sober state, that a fake Church now commands the loyalty of all those seen the world over as Catholic Bishops, Priests, Cardinals, Popes, Deacons, and Seminarians; an entire planet showing the Cross on top of fake churches, with no Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle, and no valid Masses being celebrated. All this, in favour of a fantasy Church whose last Pope, Benedict, died saying he has validly resigned, and Francis is Pope.

Stop dreaming. Start thinking.

Benedictsedism is sedevacantism in waiting, and in the present situation it is just as absurd as the mainstream Sedevacantism.

Mundabor

 

About these ads

Posted on March 3, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. All true. Sadly, this set of circumstances leaves the actual “Catholic” (as one has understood the term since Our Blessed Lord entrusted his Church to the Apostles, that is: one obedient to the consistent teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and the Popes throughout time) in the bit of a sticky wicket, no? It was hard enough “reading John Paul II through Pius X” or “reading Benedict XVI through Leo XIII.” How do we “read Francis through Pius IX”? We know how we read Francis IN the Syllabus of Errors, of course. Increasingly come the demands of fidelity to the visible seats of authority…but to be faithful to these means infidelity to their predecessors.

    • How do we “read Francis through Pius IX”?

      I read Francis in many of the forbidden propositions of the Syllabus, actually…

      As for myself, I will continue to be faithful to the office, and to the man as long and every time that he does not make me choose between the office and Christ.

      M

  2. the problem, I think, is not sedevacantism o Benedisedetism, but a” diarchia”: Bxvi has resigned from active ministery, but he is still a Pope, who signs Christmas Card as Benedictus P.P. xvi, and Francis, well, is more a Bishop of Rome than. a Pope, or, better, more like an Anglican Bishop than a Catholic Vicar of Christ and Successojri of Peter.
    That’s the problem.

    • He isn’t the Pope. A former Prime Minister is called “Primo Ministro” as a sign of honour, but he is not the PM anymore. A professor emeritus is called “professor”, but is not anymore.

      Benedict is, alas, a tad vain in insisting in signature and white habit, and possibly does it to stress the importance of the office he once had. But there is only one Pope.

      M

  3. Maureen Bercier

    Saint Francis of Assisi wrote,
    “There will be an invalidly elected Pope. He will cause great confusion. He will
    cause Catholics to doubt their faith. He will accept all religions on equal basis.
    There will be widespread descent and he will deceive even the very elect if the last days
    are not shortened.”

    I don’t think it is entirely absurd.

    Thanks for your great blog articles. They are awesome.

    • Oh, it’s entirely credible.
      The problem is: who.
      I can’t see how this Pope was elected differently than countless others.
      M

  4. Mundabor,
    in my view it is very simple: Maybe Benedict is, indeed, the Pope, and Francis is an Antipope. But if so, the Church will let us know the truth through future successors of Peter.

    As it says in the Bible: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”. Nowhere does it say in Scripture or Tradition to “work out who is Pope with fear and trembling”.

    By the way, given the vast crowds of sedevacantists, the notion of “mainstream” sedevacantism is somewhat… entertaining… ;)

    • But I, as a Cathpolic, must see in Peter the one whom the Church says to me he is peter.
      I can’t decide that perhaps John or Matthew is Peter.
      Benedict isn’t the Pope. He isn’t the Pope. No more than Bush is the President of the United States.
      M

    • Mundabor,
      I agree. Therefore, I accept Francis (and not Benedict) as Pope. But if the Church were to tell me in twenty years that the appearances were, in fact, wrong back then, I would accept that, too.

    • “Nowhere does it say in Scripture or Tradition to “work out who is Pope with fear and trembling”.”

      Very well said.

      M

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,992 other followers

%d bloggers like this: