I am yet to see a coherent reply to the solid arguments of sedevacantists, particularly as Fr Cekada exposes it here:
www.traditionalmass.org/articles. Well, I'll agree some sedevacantists are unbearably ignorant and harsh, that nevertheless should not make us blind to our solid arguments, the bases of which Michael Davies himself acknowledged as true: that a heretic cannot be pope, and that the Magisterium cannot err in any capacity - ordinary or extraordinary.
Here are the fruits of this evil.
They encourage men to become puffed up with conceit but know nothing, they have a morbid craving for controvery and for disputes about words, they are a sowers of envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions and wrangling among men. They destroy obedience and promote rebellion against those who have been given authority by God.
I would agree some sedevacantists have exhibited bad 'external fruits,' but let your rejection of our theological position not be based on that but on a sound refutation based on Church teaching and practice.
According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have sucessors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time. (De fide.)
Peter is to have successors for all time. They say that Peter has not had a successor since Pope Pius XII or even earlier depending on who you are talking to, they also cannot tell us how Peter is ever going to have a successor ever again. This is a denial of this dogma.
Well, you need to read the available options for selecting the next true pope if our position is true. St Robert Bellarmine gives them to us very clearly! I am pasting the article at the end.
What I don't get about it is why the bishops who are don't just take the logical step and elect their own pope.
If you read the article I have pasted, you would understand why.
The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church. (De fide.)
They do not accept the Popes "supreme power of jurisdiction", they openly deny it and constantly seek to undermine his authority and take it for their own. They would make themselves judge of the supreme earthly judge who has been appointed by God.
The Pope has all authority the Sedes on the other hand have no authority and have no mission from God other than to save their own souls. They are usurpers and heretics of the worst kind because there arguments can be so enticing to those of the faithful who value the intellect over the spirit.
Well, in practice, not only sedevacantists are guilty of this. The SSPX is too. The SSPX claims recognition of the 'pope' officially, but the praxis is different - saying Mass and distributing the other sacraments without jurisdiction, invoking the principle of supplied jurisdiction when the 'pope' is alive! I am yet to see why they are justified. They are setting "altar against altar" as they set up chapels anywhere in the world with no regard to the local authority. This is the scenario you have just described - not only sedevacantists are guilty.
Well, we do not recognise Ratzinger's authority simply because we dont believe he is pope. Simply. But why does the SSPX not in practice recognise his authority? Catholics are never known to 'negotiate' with their popes, catholics submit to their popes!
Bellarmine on Extraordinary Papal ElectionsBellarmine on Extraordinary Papal
Elections
Bellarmine's Controversies, De clericis, bk. I, ch. 10.
(Translated by James Larrabee, with comments)
Chapter 10.
Eighth Proposition. If there were no papal constitution on the election of the Supreme Pontiff; or if by some chance all the electors designated by law, that is, all the Cardinals, perished simultaneously, the right of election would pertain to the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with some dependence on a general council of bishops.
In this proposition, there does not appear to be universal agreement. Some think that, exclusive of positive law, the right of election would devolve on a Council of Bishops, as Cajetan, tract. De Potestate Papae & Concilii, cap. 13 & 21 & Francis Victoria, relect. 2. quest. 2. De potestate Ecclesiae. Others, as Sylvester relates s.v. Excommunicatio, 9. sec. 3, teach that in that case the right of election pertains to the Roman clergy. But these two opinions can be reconciled. Without a doubt, the primary authority of election in that case pertains to a Council of Bishops; since, when the Pontiff dies, there is no higher authority in the Church than that of a general Council: and if the Pontiff were not the Bishop of Rome, or any other particular place, but only the general Pastor of the whole Church, it would pertain to the Bishops either to elect his successor, or to designate the electors: nevertheless, after the Pontificate of the world was joined to the bishopric of the City [posteaquam unitus est Pontificatus orbis Episcopatui Urbis], the immediate authority of electing in that case would have to be permitted by the bishops of the whole world to the neighboring bishops, and to the clerics of the Roman Church, which is proved in two ways.
First, because the right of election was transferred from all the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy to the Cardinals, who are a certain part of the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church; therefore, when the Cardinals are lacking, the right of election ought to return to all the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church.
Second, because this is a most ancient custom (as we showed above from Cyprian), that the neighboring bishops, in the presence of the clergy, should elect both the Bishop of Rome and others also. And it is unheard of that the Bishops or Archbishops of the whole world should meet for the election of the Supreme Pontiff, except in a case where it is doubtful who should be the legitimate electors. For this doubt ought to be resolved by a general Council, as was done in the Council of Constance. [This is the entire text of chap. 10.]
It should be noted that in this book, St. Robert treats first of the election of bishops, refuting the Protestant theory of popular election (revived by modern liberal "Catholics") at considerable length (chap. 7). He then deals in detail with the election of the Supreme Pontiff (chap. 9). The proposition at the head of chapter 7 reads: "The right of electing the Supreme Pontiff, and the other Pastors and Ministers of the Church, does not belong to the people by divine right. But if, at any time, the people had any power in this matter, that was entirely from the connivance or the concession of the Pontiffs."
Another point to keep in mind in this context is that the neighboring bishops to the see of Rome are actually the Cardinal Bishops, the bishops of the suburbicarian sees. These have been associated in the government of the Church by the Popes from the earliest times. On this Bellarmine says in chap. 9 (in which he is concerned to show that the constituted method of papal election by the Cardinals, while not of divine law, is the best and should be retained): "The second manner [of electing a Bishop] was, that all the Bishops of the same province, or the majority of them, should elect the Bishop, after, however,
requesting the testimony and consent of the Clergy and people of the place to which the Bishop is being given: and in the same manner were elected Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and the Supreme Pontiff himself, namely by the neighboring or provincial Bishops. And this was the most ancient manner ..."
Further down he says: "The second manner is found in this form [of papal election, that is, election by the Cardinals], insofar as the principle element in it is concerned; for the neighboring Bishops now elect as they then elected, namely the six Cardinal Bishops."
