oo! First to comment! Latin (or in this case clerical celibacy) shall be given the pride of place!

And the updates are already rolling in: "Ignatius Press to keep Benedict XVI listed as coauthor of new celibacy book"

Trite to say, "a house divided unto itself must surely fall". Such is the fate of this Novus Ordo church.

Joseph Aloysius Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio are both Modernists albeit striped in different hues of the same malady that afflicts the soul "unto death".

Of various hues they are, and, yet, both are condemned as purveyors of apostasy that has rent the Roman Catholic Church.

I noticed too, that in the OnePeterFive article, the authors, regarding to the Amazon synod, make reference to a "strange synod of media" opposing the real synod. Guess we need discernment...

There's also the "Ratzinger of the media" (conservative bulldog) and then the real one (Modernist)...

Because we don't read heretical books by non-Catholics.

I should hope that the Church Christ founded would forbid her children from reading literature that will harm their Faith. You sound like the serpent speaking to Eve.

Maybe you could go and tell your second wife how much you love her.

I think Orestes Brownson write about that book.

I wonder where they get their two chances to get their marriage right? Why stop at two chances to live up to marriage vows? Why not six wives like Henry VIII, or multiple concubines like the pig, Luther?
“What God has joined let no man put asunder, but you are allowed one mulligan.” Where do they get this?

Or PelayoHSV's beloved Eastern Orthodox, which made it officially three tries, for some reason only they know. Like baseball's three strikes. Har har.

I thought they only did two tries. My mistake. I am not up on the details of the various loser religions of the world.

That's what we call guilt by association. In any case, many cults also promote their own works, as you are doing by promoting Guettee. So what?

Kinda like your!

One more reason to believe in Catholicism rather than Eastern Heterodoxy.

Is faith more important than Truth?

Faith is the virtue by which God's truth is believed and safeguarded, and it is necessary for salvation.

Addendum:
Catholic lay apologist Orestes Brownson took Guettee to the woodshed in a 2-part refutation of his work on the Papacy:
Part 1: http://orestesbrownson.org/...
Part 2: http://orestesbrownson.org/...

PelayoHSV: There is no truth in Guettee's writing. He lies to lead people away from the truth. Anybody can read history and see Guettee's nonsense.

I have a question maybe you can write an article on soon. If the Novus Ordo church is now obviously a false church and not the true Catholic church, then obviously you cannot wait around for it to elect a true pope, because how can a false church elect the true pope? Not to mention it has already become impossible for them to even elect a half-way decent fake pope, since each fake pope adds more cardinals who think like him, and the cardinals are the ones who elect the next fake pope, making each fake pope faker than the last. There is no way these cardinals, made cardinals by a fake pope, will elect a true pope. So therefore, only the Sedavanticists can possible elect a true pope, if indeed the Sedavanticists are the true church, as they say. So why don't they? or will their mind soon be changed? Are Sedavanticists realizing that THEY must elect the new true pope because the cardinals are not even true cardinals so can't. Or will Sedevanticists persist in NOT having a pope, until the majority of them end up following PelayoHSV's advice and going Eastern Orthodox? Because will that not be the result if Sedavanticists keep saying the Vatican is a false church and the popes are false, and the cardinals are false, but then just hope ignorantly that the false church and false cardinals will miraculously elect a true pope? If Sedavanticists don't make their own cardinals and have their own papal election, won't they end up just dispersing and going Eastern Orthodox?

The short answer is: Because it is not possible, at least not in practice. It is not possible because it requires authority to call a conclave, since the result of the conclave has to be binding on consciences. But it is not clear who would have that authority. Besides, it is not even clear who would qualify as a papal elector. We live in bizarre times, but the worst we could do is try to take matters into our own hands and force a human "solution" to it all. It would be like Abraham trying to raise up seed with the bondwoman, Hagar, because his wife was barren but God has promised Him a son.

No, the best idea is to join the perpetual novena for God to send us a true Pope. Go to prayforapope.com and sign up.

How is it not possible though? It used to be that the Christians of Rome elected the pope directly, before cardinals existed. Why can't you just have all the Sedevanticists vote for one of your bishops to become Pope? IF you say "it requires authority to call a conclave" are you not admitting that the Novus Ordo still has authority? So they are still the true church? Then you would be the false church. Your logic is self-defeating. Either your church has the authority to elect its own pope, or you church is not the true church. Hence, it is inevitable that your sect will dwindle away as its members either go back to the Novus Ordo or go Eastern Orthodox, because at some point they will see that a church without the authority to elect its own pope cannot be the Roman Catholic Church.

Like football, sometimes you have to go back for a punt. Sedes have reverted back to pre VATII. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church before VATII with a valid pope was recognized as the continuation of the True Church of Christ. That church has the promise of Christ that it will exist until the end of time. Period. It will not dwindle away. It may seem to be 'underground' as did the early church but has not nor will it dwindle away. ALL other religions have gone their way but not the true Catholic Church. The Chair of Peter remains and will continue to. There will be times when empty of a true pope. Suggest you go back and check out several posts on this entire subject. Then you will understand that only by God's will is His church viable.

By that same logic though you could say the Eastern Orthodox church is the true Catholic church just with the chair empty. What's the difference between a Sede church and the EO with regard to the papacy when neither has a pope?

It's not that hard to see the difference: Sedevacantists believe in the Papacy and lament the fact that there is no Pope. The Eastern Orthodox don't believe in the Papacy.

Look, I don't have the time for in-depth theological contributions everytime someone has a question or objection in the combox.

You need to read more attentively. I didn't say no one has the authority, I said it is not clear who has it. And I said it is not possible in practice. There is a lot that is unknown or mysterious about our current ecclesiastical condition. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Perhaps you are one of those who will only accept what he can personally figure out, but the virtue of Faith doesn't work like that.

I simply don't have time to argue this in-depth now. Please familiarize yourself a little more with Sedevacantism before you draw rash conclusions.

"Look, I don't have the time for in-depth theological contributions everytime someone has a question or objection in the combox."

Its not like this is not going to be a perennial question. I'm sure its been asked before. Its an obvious question. You're dodging it because its too telling.

Uh, the primary purpose of this web site is to demonstrate that the Vatican II religion is not Roman Catholicism. This web site is not supposed to be a one-stop shop to have all your questions answered, esp. not if we're talking about questions disputed among sedevacantists.

Interesting thread, and I'm happy to see you've finally spelled 'sedevacantist' correctly in your final post (I'm a bit of a spelling nerd). Sedes hold a specific doctrinal opinion about the papacy. They do not rebel against the office of the papacy, but only say the current pope is not valid. We have no idea what the future will bring and we do not know if God will send us a true pope in the future, or how that might happen. Taking it on ourselves to elect a pope is against established Canon law, regardless of what was done by early Christians.
BTW, what you're speaking about is called conclavism and there are already those who have elected a pope for themselves. See Pope Michael and Lucian Pulvermacher.

What is the "specific doctrinal opinion" you're referring to?

I'm only saying that at some point, it may (probably will) be determined by future conclaves that these specific popes are indeed invalid. While we firmly believe they are, there hasn't been an official Church pronunciation on it, only writings from previous popes which support our position.

I see. I would just caution against the use of the word "opinion" in this context, because it's really not an opinion in the sense of "take it or leave it." We cannot base our position on a mere opinion.

Understood. Is there a word to describe a position that hasn't been definitively settled by the proper authority?

What specifically hasn't been definitively settled?

By definitively settled, I mean that the Church itself has not made a definitive statement on this.

I guess you would say that the status of these men as false popes is "undeclared" but nevertheless manifest.

The Eastern Orthodox (and SSPX) actually recognize the Pope but refuse submission to him.

We submit to the Pope. But we don't think there has been a known Pope since 1958, only fake heretical Modernist antipopes.

Your idea that we'll become Eastern Orthodox is based upon a faulty assumption: that we're refusing submission to the Pope, like the schismatic Old Catholics of Utrecht, or the schismatic Eastern Orthodox, because reasons. That's wrong.

We don't think he's the Pope at all.

We're not schismatics.

So, are you Eastern Orthodox or are you Novus Ordo? Your name is confusing me.

Well said.

Why don't you quit wasting your time reading Abbe Guetee's "The Papacy" and free yourself from the Protestant religion known as Eastern Orthodoxy? In fact you can read this https://stevensperay.wordpr...

Which link is not working for you? There are two from his article at the bottom of the page. They work when I click on them.

I just started reading it on google books. Perfect scan of the English translation from 1867. I've read from page 21-23 already (all before that was introduction stuff).

PelayoHSV: I've read Guettee's sophomoric study to find that the Eastern Orthodox don't have a leg to stand on. The ex-Catholic priest and "historian" Guettee starts off by telling us that the late 8th century Pope Arian I was the first pope of the Catholic Church. Anybody with an ounce of knowledge knows this to be ridiculous. The so-called historian must have forgotten to read Irenaeus or perhaps Eusebius' Church History. You'd think a honest respectable priest would present the facts correctly but not Guettee. He had no intention of being honest and fair. He was a heretic from hell and anybody who would follow such a disgusting person will have eternity of hell-fire to pay.