The Church is quite clear on what the pope is: 1) the Vicar of Christ on Earth, 2) the visible head of the Church Militant, 3) visible source of unity for the Church Militant, and 4) proximate rule of faith.

From those, it necessarily follows that a true pope cannot, as pope, bind the faithful with a law that would damage souls, teach anything contrary to the ordinary Magisterium, teach anything harmful to faith and/or morals. If you have to question if what the "pope" is saying, if it is consistent with Catholic doctrine, then you have just admitted to yourself he's probably not a pope.

Mary,

Pre-Vatican II theologians are weighty authorities and cannot be dismissed. They represent the official interpretation of matters in the mind of the Church. No, they are not infallible, but because they carry the weight of (Pre-Vatican II) papal approval, they cannot be ignored as mere "opinion".

Prior to the creation of the Conciliar anti-church, the idea that a man like Jorge Bergoglio would be considered Catholic, let alone pope would have been laughed at. At least Rahner and Kung had the piece of mind to hide their heresy until a Modernist like Paul VI or John XXIII assumed the Chair. Jorge has been a manifest, pertinatious heretic for years. He was so bad that the Jesuit superior argued against JPII making him a Conciliar bishop.

The ordinary Magisterium of the Church is quite clear: heresy, not a declaration, separates oneself from the Church. To say a declaration is needed is to say the Church, Her saints, and Her doctors don't know what they are saying...

@yuca2111 First, when you understand the theology behind the sedevacantist position, you realize that it is entirely consistent with Catholic theology and Dogma. Sedevacantism is not a heresy (but tell that to those who insist a manifest, pertinatious heretic is a Catholic, let alone pope).

Second, if one rejects Bergoglio in 2024, they are necessarily sedevacantist, as if Jorge isn't pope (he's not), then the "sede" is "vacante". Now, when Anacletus II claimed the throne, and you rejected his claim, then you supported Innocent II, and thus could not be sedevacantist. This also doesn't explain St. Vincent Ferrer, who argued, at the end of the Western Schism, that the See was vacant because the claimants became schismatics by refusing to heal the split by resigning for the good of the Church.

Seeing as the Church has declared St. Vincent Ferrer a saint and doctor, I don't really think you can argue that "sedevacantism" is an impossibility.

Pope Celestine I formally taught that any heretic, from the moment of his heresy is deprived of his office and authority, ipso facto, no declaration needed. Pope Paul IV, in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, decreed that heretics cannot elect or be elected pope validly...even if the election is valid. Post-Vatican I canonists all agree that public and repeated heresy indicates an intent to teach something other than what is Divine and Catholic Faith. Pope Pius XII echoed that in Mystici Corporis. In summary, the ordinary universal Magesterium (and thus infallible, as per Vatican I), is that a public and repeated heretic is AUTOMATICALLY outside the Church, and thus AUTOMATICALLY loses any office and authority.

[The distinction between formal ane material is moot when a heretic is pertinatious: by persistence in their error, they are acknowledging they are aware of the Truth and rejecting it.]

Vatican II taught heresy in Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humanae, and Unitatis Redintegratio. Any cleric who holds those documents to be legitimate Magesterial documents is holding onto heresy, OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING. In the external forum, and in line with Pius XII, they cannot be said to be Catholic.

Regardless of any declaration, we the faithful have an obligation to flee from heresy and heretics.

@Irishpol 1) It is a matter of Divine and Catholic Faith that the pope must be a member of the Catholic Church.

2) It is a matter of Divine and Catholic Faith that a manifest and pertinatious heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church, as their heresy is a tacit resignation of their membership. A heretic, whether formally declared as such or not, has absolutely no position or authority in the Church.

3) The pope is the proximate rule of Faith, and all the faithful are guaranteed to be safe from error and damnation in following the teachings of a valid pope.

4) It is a matter of Divine and Catholic Faith that the Church is infallible in Her teachings on Faith and Morals. That infallibility does NOT extend to papal elections: there have been invalid popes (antipopes) elected in the past.

Conclusion: A valid election does not guarantee a valid pope. A man who is a heretic at the time of his election CANNOT be pope because he is not Catholic. There is no evidence that Bergoglio was ever pope, because he was a heretic in Buenos Aires. And one seriously has to question Benedict XVI, because he legitimately thought he could bifurcate the papacy, which seems to me to be heretical.

[For those that argue his heresy wasn't declared, that is irrelevant: the consistent teaching of the Theologians and doctors is the heretics have no position, with or without a declaration.]

Herr Mueller should read Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, and Pope Pius XI on the authority of the pope. All agree that that the legitimate Magisterium of the pope is, at the very least, safe to believe and beneficial to the souls of the faithful...hence the adage of St. Augustine: "Roma locuta est, causa finita est." The pope is the "proximate rule of faith", and the faithful thus owe religious assent to all a true pope teaches.

Recognition of a pope means that one recognizes them as "proximate rule of faith", and assents to all they teach because they have confidence they will not be led astray. Remove that confidence, start questioning what the dude in white is saying, and you have ceased recognizing him as pope.

At no time was Bergoglio ever seen as the proximate rule of Faith. This is because none of the claimants after Pius XII were seen as the proximate rule of Faith. This does not mean they weren't true popes, only that there was never "universal peaceful acceptance".

It's a two-legged sword because on the one hand, you WANT your seminarians to separate from the world, break inordinate attachments to things and people, and dedicate themselves to prayer and study...but on the other hand, NO seminaries need to be careful: too much access to Pius X's Pascendi or Lamentabili, of Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors or Quanta Cura, or Gregory XVI's Mirari vos might make them question their own formation.

Yes, a two-edged sword. I know some seminarians at Traditional seminaries who do not have access to "the outside world" except for a couple of hours a week, like what seminaries were like in the 1940s and 1950s. The difference between these Traditional seminaries and the NO seminary in question is that the seminarians spend their time learning philosophy, theology, moral theology and such from saints, doctors of the Church, and holy popes before the Robber Council of 1962.

The SSPX "lost the plot", so to speak, when Archbishop Lefebvre died. They have developed a wierd theology that is internally inconsistent. Archbishop Lefebvre called the Conciliar church a schismatic church which had created it's own man-centered theology with requisite man-centered rites, and a new clergy, based on non-Catholic ideas. The post-Lefebvre Society has abandoned that mentality. It is said that Lefebvre regretted his conciliatory approach with the Vatican in the 80s, thinking them in good faith, but realizing they were not.

So...why is the position that the Church cannot promulgate error or harmful teachings poisonous? Because THAT is what sedevacantism really says: that the Church is indefectable, and thus when error is taught (as in Nostrae Aetate, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Lumen Gentium, as well as in the General Institution of the Roman Missal--especially of 1969, not to mention Amoris Laetitia, et al), it NOT of the Church. If a pope teaches error officially to thr faithful, or promotes a harmful practice, he cannot, objectively speaking, be the pope. The mechanism is such a thing is not necessarily relevant.

To hold that a valid pope, who is the proximate rule of Faith, can officially teach, not just heresy, but error and harmful doctrines, and can legally condone gravely sinful acts is poisonous. Catholics are supposed to look to the pope for guidance on Faith and morals, lest they fall into heresy. If they can't trust the pope, then they can't trust anyone. If they can't trust the Pope, they cannot trust the Church, which the pope heads.

Olson was, I would presume, acting on orders from above.

At issue is the Traditional Carmelite rule, which is at variance with Bergoglio's "Cor Orans" trash, which subjugated all "contemplative" orders to larger "associations" that are worldly and fully dedicated to the "New Springtime" of Vatican II. Read Gaudium et spes, and realize that the contemplative life is inconsistent with the "New Evangelization". That is what is happening. Contemplative orders that were once thriving and growing must be placed under a more "modern" rule.

Seriously. That the hierarch in charge of that diocese just stripped the parish of its status says he has no concern for the souls of the people who attend services there.

And dialogue for 18 months? Should he have excommunicated everyone involved immediately? Of course, when you make a service that emphasizes the assembly and not the act on the altar, you only breed the idea that women can preside. I mean women can sit in a chair and direct was well as men...