General Discussion (10)

cartoondiscussion10If there’s something of interest in the news that’s not covered in one of the topic threads, or you have a question to ask, a comment you’d like to  make about anything under the sun, more or less, this is the thread for you. However, please check first, to ensure that you haven’t missed a topic thread or another thread where it would be appropriate to post your comment.  Readers have occasionally gone straight to the General Discussion thread to post news that is already the topic of a thread or to ask a question that is already being discussed elsewhere. So, do your Sherlock Holmes before posting here, please and thank you!

Feel free, also, to share your favourite spiritual reading books, prayers and devotions. Whatever.   Enjoy! 

To read previous 9 General Discussion Threads, click on the links listed below.
(1)
click here  (2) click here  (3) click here  (4) click here  (5) click here
(6) click here 
(7) click here  (8) click here  (9) click here

The Conundrum of Catholic Schools

SCESlogoI’m always very surprised to learn of allegedly informed Catholics who continue to believe that Catholic schools are doing a great job.  It’s as if there were no crisis in the Church, as if everyone involved had the same objective of passing on the Faith. Having led a number of RE Departments in Catholic schools in England, I know differently. At the time of this writing I know of several RE teachers in various Scottish Catholic schools who are having a hard time of it when they uphold the Church’s teaching on sexual morality; in some cases, the same pupils who mischievously (in my view) ask a question about, say, homosexuality, will then lodge a complaint that the teacher is “homophobic ” for doing nothing more than repeating what the Church teaches, based on the natural moral law.  In some cases, parents, and colleagues also complain. Teachers who uphold the Faith are bullied. That’s a fact. So, I decided to check out the Scottish Catholic Education Service website, to see how they’re selling Catholic schools these days.  There was one surprise, showing that they’re paying some attention to the valid criticisms made by informed Catholics for years now, but there was also the usual blurb. More on the surprise in a moment, but first…

Here’s the usual blurb…

Central to Catholic Christian faith is the person of Jesus Christ whose invitation to all people to live life in all its fullness presents the challenge which lies at the heart of religious education. Ways of responding to this challenge are facilitated through regular reflection upon the impact of the message of Catholic Christian faith on learners’ understanding of life and on their personal response to their life circumstances. Such reflective consideration leads to the growth of knowledge and understanding and provides opportunities for the development of beliefs, values and practices which result in the making of religious and moral decisions and commitments in life. Contexts for such opportunities may include:

  • appropriate experiences and celebration of prayer, reflection, meditation and liturgy
  • consideration of relevant life situations which present moral challenges
  • experience of engaging with the community of faith in home, school and parish
  • participation in acts of charity and in service for communities, locally and globally.

Here’s the surprise…

While it is appropriate to include learning about other denominations and other faiths, the aim in Catholic religious education classes will always be to form young people who follow Jesus and to assist them to know, love and serve God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Hence, Catholic religious education is ‘confessional’ in nature. In particular, teachers should avoid taking a phenomenological approach, thus presenting all denominations or faiths as equally true. While respecting pupils’ opinions and faith backgrounds, teachers must propose Catholic beliefs and values as objectively true and eminently relevant. In this way, in the teaching of religious education, Catholic beliefs, traditions and practices must be seen as central: “. . . relativism must be avoided”.  Source 

WOW! Was THAT a surprise. When I did my teacher-training in Glasgow, it was the phenomenological approach all the way.  The very word “confessional” was expunged from the blurb, and we were forbidden to teach the Catholic religion as if it were true. We had to think about those from lapsed home, from Protestant homes, from non-Christian homes, from the cat & dog home – in fact we had to think about anything and everything except the reason for having Catholic schools in the first place which is, of course, to pass on the Catholic Faith – with conviction.

Here’s the conundrum…

 For starters,  the rest of the website is designed,  more or less, to ensure that the “surprise” paragraph remains in the category of “The Theory of Catholic Education”.

 The fact  is, too, that staff are often living in “relationships” which are a counter-witness to the famous Catholic “ethos”.  They are not, therefore, ipso facto  in a position to uphold Catholic teaching on key moral issues such as marriage. Hence the  hostility facing those teachers who do live in conformity with Catholic doctrine and morality, and who seek to pass it on to pupils – as is their duty, and for which they will be called to account before God.  It’s a scandal of monumental proportions, therefore, when Catholic teachers are forced to approach their professional associations/unions for help and support, or take sickness leave, or consider moving into the non-denominational sector or, in one case that I know of, decide to leave teaching altogether, and for what? For doing nothing more than their duty as Catholic educators.

The idea, too, that Catholic education requires not only the active support of teachers and parents, but priests in the parishes, brings problems. I’m losing count of the number of parishioners telling me the most shocking things that they hear from their priests and the liturgical abuses which are now endemic in the new Mass. How can pupils learn true Catholic doctrine on the Real Presence for example, when they are encouraged to receive Communion in the hand and even from a lay person,  or true doctrine on the priesthood if they see lay people distributing ashes, and giving blessings to those not receiving the Blessed Sacrament.

Conundrum? Catholic schools? What do you think? 

Rome Rabbi Admonishes Pope Francis

A French reader emailed the article below, which is more outspoken and detailed than any I’ve read in the press in the UK – both secular and “Catholic”.  Comments invited…

The afternoon of January 17, 2016 Pope Francis, after his prayer time with migrants at the time of the Angelus and the passage of the Holy Door of St. Peter’s Basilica with its 5000 non-EU guests, so sesame New World, will travel as scheduled to the synagogue.

Awaited with joy, this visit is a decline of more than the spiritual primacy of the Catholic Church to the world and men. Prepared by the Jewish community of Rome and the Papal services, it will mark a turning point in relations between Jews and Catholics, turning to the advantage of the Hebrew religion. The recent remarks made ​​by the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni, a preview of this meeting, are there to testify.

In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Rabbi sent a clear and precise message to Pope Francis: Christians should not try to convert Jews. It is the Pope, he said, to send this message to the faithful Catholics around the world. Would be put into practice the new doctrine contained in the conciliar document Nostra Aetate doctrine that has been reinforced by the recent theological documents out of the Vatican cellars for 50 years of the decree of Vatican II and which states that the Catholic Church should no longer have missionary activity among Jews.

 Pope Francis listens as Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome, outlines his demands during the pope’s visit to the main synagogue in Rome January, 17

Pope Francis & Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome,  during the Pope’s visit to the main synagogue in Rome January, 17

“If the Church says that the Jewish people must be appreciated and respected but written only in a theological paper, few people understand the message. “Said the rabbi. “But if the pope visits a fundamental historical place like the Great Synagogue of Rome, then the message of friendship and respect is clearly understood and expressed. “

“The Vatican supports, says rightly Di Segni Rabbi, the Jews are still the chosen people, even if we do not believe in Jesus and that we continue to have a role in what they call salvation, even as non -croyant in Jesus. From a practical point of view this means that not need to be converted Jews. Judaism is considered a religion that is part of their religious system and deserves to be respected. “

From a practical standpoint, the chief rabbi would ask simply to Pope Catholic, so this new theological vision of the Jews, who is not Catholic, is understood around the world that the Good Friday prayer for the conversion Jews still in force in the form of the “extraordinary rite”, although already reworked to be more acceptable to the Jews by Benedict himself, is now removed. Not less ! Delicate but crucial issue for the Jewish people who believe that anti-Semitism still persist hints within the Catholic Church despite his fraternal statements, more than fraternal, submission, “elder brothers in faith”. The repentance and abdication of the conciliar popes will never be enough: it always takes more, until no remnant of Catholic doctrine survivor of the extermination camp what the conciliar Church. Give them a hand, it’s not the arm, but they will take whole body!

Di Segni is firmly Riccardo decided to talk with the Pope during the visit of the afternoon. He already has some ideas and advice for the Vicar of Christ, he gives the scoop Haaretz: “What is happening thus demonstrates that the documents, the latest published last year, have not yet been received uniformly. Perhaps it would be better disclose, to make them happen also in the peripheries. “In a word, it is the traditionalists attached to the Tridentine Mass, poor commuters on the sidelines of conciliar Catholicism, which are to be rehabilitated!” All we hope that these prayers are only a folkloric survival.   “(Sic)

To help get the message, or rather the admonition, the visit of Francis will be with members of the Jewish community and a dozen survivors of the concentration camps, children from schools, shopkeepers, that is to say Jewish merchants. Few policies and church members.

Some other so-called contentious issues, while already one can doubt that in time it is the Church that will reverse, are in the background and will not be discussed even if they weigh the “good” relations between Jews and Catholics: the question of the beatification of Pius XII, accused by the Jewish community of not having quite strongly condemned Nazism and the recent issue of the diplomatic agreement between the Holy See and Palestinian state. A letter written by 71 rabbis around the world has also been sent to Pope Francis that he reviews this diplomatic position.

If for the rabbi De Segni this pope “is very interesting”, well that “we can talk with him”, efforts are however requested it in all areas to demonstrate its good faith towards them: we must, for example explains the rabbi, the use of offensive terms such reconsideration Pharisees because they maintain prejudice towards the chosen people.

As we can see is the disappearance of whole sectors of the Catholic doctrine, prayers, writings, lyrics, it is a rewriting theological, linguistic, liturgical and history of the Catholic religion, the Jews imposed in this dialogue one way for 50 years. It is the creation of a new religion that will name a Catholic they are striving with the complicity of ecclesiastical rights forgetful of Christ, new religion that would be perhaps this Noahide religion theorized by Talmudic rabbis of the nineteenth century. In a nutshell, that is the disappearance of traditional Catholicism firmly they work conscientiously and since Vatican II, obviously.

At the disappearance of this Catholicism which saw the conversion of Jews celebrated with a nice example was the chief rabbi Eugenio Zolli who chooses the name of Eugenio, at his baptism, in honor of Pope Pius XII and its protective action in favor of the Roman and Italian Jewish community during the Second World War and the occupation of Rome by German troops. But there also is another story that our conciliar popes want to put in the closet.

In any case, with such beginnings, the visit this afternoon the 17 January 2016 certainly will sign another abandonment, another repentance, another abdication for the humiliation again and again of the Catholic Church and through it Christian civilization, already fairly attacked by migratory invasion which is now also the feast day the Vatican!   Source  

 

Pope Francis & ‘Rebel’ Christians…

(Vatican Radio) Christians who say “it’s always been done that way,” and stop there have hearts closed to the surprises of the Holy Spirit. They are idolaters and rebels will never arrive at the fullness of the truth. That was the message of Pope Francis at Mass on Monday morning at the chapel in the Casa Santa Marta. Click here to read more  

 

Don't worry, Lord, I'm working on those new wineskins! I think the faithful are getting the message!

Don’t worry, Lord, I’m working on those new wineskins! I think the diehards are getting the message!

Comment

So, Catholics who choose to stick to Catholic Tradition, and refuse to follow Pope Francis’ conveniently liberal “God/Holy Spirit of Surprises”, continue to be attacked mercilessly (note) and are now  even to be labelled   “idolaters and rebels” who will “never arrive at the fullness of the truth” – unlike every atheist, agnostic and peddler of false beliefs who have received the pontiff’s blessing and assurance of salvation no matter what they think, say or do in matters of theology and morality.  He must have been absent the day they taught the Thinking Skills class.  I mean, he didn’t so much as whisper a protest during the same-sex “marriage” referendum in once-Catholic Ireland, to cite but one major example of his dereliction of papal duty,  while he waxes lyrical at every opportunity about those of us guilty of nothing more than adhering to the Faith of our Fathers. Laugh? I thought I’d never start.

Pray for Pope Francis, of course, but make no mistake about it. He’s no Pius X, and yes, I managed to keep a straight face when typing that, even if I did think “as if…” 

Here’s something to discuss, however, lest we are tempted to spend the thread simply repeating the obvious;  is it true, in your experience, that more and more Catholics in the diocesan parishes (you know, within the “mainstream” Church structures) are becoming concerned at the utterances and behaviour of this Pope?  I’m hearing this quite a bit from Catholics who are still within the “mainstream” structures. What about you?  Are your friends and relatives becoming concerned?  And if you are an occasional blogger here or a lurker who falls into the category of  “mainstream”, tell us your thoughts.  Soon! 

Should We Kill Rapists, Not Babies?

From February 10 to March 20, our community will take part in 40 Days for Life … a groundbreaking, coordinated international  mobilization. We pray that, with God’s help, this will mark the beginning of the end of abortion in our city [Glasgow] — and beyond.  Source

animatedbabyIn the Scottish print media, the above pro-life event is being portrayed as a militant US style attack on women going into hospitals/clinics for abortions.  Not so, of course, it’s a peaceful, prayerful vigil, that’s all, but, hey, when did any media hack let the truth get in the way of their bigoted bias, if you get my drift…

This article in The Scotsman is a classic  example of the shallowness of the pro-abortion industry and its supporters.  Penned by Muriel Gray, who passes for a “celebrity” or “personality” in Scotland, it is full of the daft hyperbole that presents the pregnant woman as a wee, mousy, terrified gal, who is likely to buckle when she sees a handful of folk fingering their rosary beads outside the place where she is about to take the life of her unborn child. Legally, of course.  Don’t get me wrong.  She’s not doing anything criminal in the eyes of the law in Scotland today.  It’s just not legal to smoke in a restaurant or say something “offensive” about same-sex “marriage” but killing an unborn baby? Nope, that’s fine. That’s legal.

I decided to post this thread after reading the (at the time) two comments underneath Mzzzzz Gray’s Scotsman piece.  The second comment handed out the old chestnut, “what if the woman had been raped” [it’s then OK to abort the baby…]

I remembered seeing the headline “Why Do We Kill Babies Instead Of Rapists?” on a Lifesitenews report some time ago and thought, what the heck, let’s reflect on that sentiment here to challenge the oppressors, not just of free speech, but of free prayer and free movement.  Mzzzz Gray thinks it’s OK to protest, as long as the protest takes place outside Parliament, not outside hospitals.  My reply:  mind your own business. I’m not taking orders from you and your ilk as to where I pray my swears… Gerragrip wummin!

Comment:

Rape is a truly terrible crime.  Everyone agrees on that, and we know that death is a highly likely outcome for one of those involved.  But why should it be one of the innocents; why, in fact, the most innocent of all human beings, the most vulnerable, the baby in the womb?  If someone has to die as a result of rape, why not the guilty man – the rapist?  

From Trans-Gender To Trans-Species

MPs in the Westminster Parliament are demanding an end to “trans-phobia”.  Click here to read more

Seems they are referring only to people who want to change gender – i.e. men who want to become women and women who want to become men.  Watching the news reports and discussions about the subject yesterday, I couldn’t help wondering what would happen if someone decided they wanted to become a cat or a dog.  I resolved to post this thread and then, just for the record, decided to Google “trans-species” and to my utter astonishment discovered that there ARE people who “identify” as animals.  Nope, I’m not kidding. Take a few minutes to view the videos below and ask yourself why any apparently intelligent MP would class, as phobia, the kind of reasoned critical analysis of these desires to be a different gender and/or species.

Video 1 – a student who wants to live as a penguin

Video 2 – a 48 year old who wants to live as a dog

Comment:

Surely, MPs can’t ignore  trans-species “people” – that WOULD be discrimination: they’ve decided that anything goes these days, and so they have to see it through. What next?  From Trans-Gender to Trans-Species to… Paedophile rights to Bestiality rights? Why not. The same arguments apply as got the homosexual lobby their “rights”. 

In any event, for the purposes of this discussion, am I “phobic”, or bigoted, because I do not accept this whole “trans” movement?  And am I being unreasonable by asking why the Pope and Bishops are not speaking out against these shocking aberrations?

Who’s Afraid of Sedevacantism?

Recently, Father Anthony Cekada released a video entitled “Why Traditionalists Fear Sedevacantism”.  The video is a response to the soon-to-be-released book by John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope. Interestingly, rather than demonstrating that Traditionalists fear Sedevacantism, Father Cekada’s remarks suggest that he fears Traditionalists critiques of Sedevacantism. Rather than responding to arguments and drawing necessary distinctions, Father Cekada resorts to ad hominem attacks and oversimplifications.   TrueofFalsePopeBOOKCOVER.pngbest

The first sign of Father Cekada’s fear is the timing of the video. As Father admits in the first few minutes of the video, he has not even read the new book by Salza and Siscoe, nor could he have because it was not released at the time he made the video. Why would Father Cekada feel the need to attack a book he has not even read yet (other than a preface posted online)? Must he launch this preemptive strike because he fears the unknown text might actually refute his position?   Father Cekada’s only two criticisms of the book (not surprisingly, he has only two since he has not actually read the book) are its reported length and the use of some arguably hyperbolic language on the back cover.

As to the first, I can say having reviewed an advance copy of the book that it is quite long but this is because the book is extremely comprehensive. The authors not only dedicate significant space in the book to explaining and refuting the arguments of the Sedevacantists opinion in general but they present significant information on the theological positions of some of the greatest theologians in Church history who have discussed the possibility of a heretical pope, especially Francisco Suarez and St. Robert Bellarmine. The authors present evidence from these writings which to my knowledge have not been analyzed in the debates over this topic in the past few decades. At a minimum this new book does the service of presenting new historical information to the discussion. In my opinion, a trite argument lacking depth of research is more to be feared than a well-researched and documented argument, although the latter may be a bit intimidating to modern audiences drunk on the thirty-second sound bite and 140-character Twitter limit.

As to the second point, I agree that some of the colorful description of the Sedevacantist opinion on the back cover of the book may be a bit exaggerated in tone. Yet, this style is not uncommon on book covers. Importantly, although they use rather strong language about the Sedevacantist argument the authors in no way insult or personally attack any persons holding the Sedevacantist opinion. Unfortunately, Father Cekada does not reciprocate but instead attacks and calumniates traditionalist figures in his video. Most appallingly, Father Cekada attacks the Society of St. Pius X and His Excellency Bishop Fellay particularly by arguing that they reject the Sedevacantist opinion because it is more lucrative to do so. He argues that there is more money to be made in what he calls the R&R position (recognize and resist) as it is more popular and acceptable to the donating public. He makes these unfounded claims while displaying pictures of Bishop Fellay and the new SSPX seminary under construction in Virginia. Although the money grubbing calumny is more oblique with reference to the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the video still implies financial concerns drove the Archbishop’s thinking. Father Cekada further attacks the Archbishop by suggesting his refusal of the Sedevacantist opinion was due to a closet Gallicanism harbored by the late Archbishop.

In any event, Father Cekada’s assertion that the SSPX rejects Sedevacantism out of human respect because the Traditionalist position is viewed as less extreme lacks basis in reality. Be it those attached to the Conciliar Church or secularists, such a distinction is not recognized. Both Traditionalists and Sedevacantists are treated as beyond the pale and extremists by the “mainstream.” In my own SSPX chapel community, I know of a lady who was fired as a teacher in a diocesan school for merely attending one Mass at the SSPX chapel. So much for the cozy acceptance of the SSPX position in contrast to Sedevacantism. Father should simply recognize that anyone overly concerned with human respect would neither be a Traditionalist nor hold the Sedevacantist position. In addition to the SSPX, Father Cekada calumniates the late Father Nicholas Gruner by also implying a financial motive behind his lifelong apostolate which Father Cekada refers to with the derogatory phrase, “the Fatima Industry.” I know from personal experience that Father Gruner lived in the most simple and humble accommodations. He carefully made certain that the donations made to the Fatima Center were used to make known the message of repentance of Our Lady of Fatima, which Father Cekada dismisses. Contrary to Father Cekada’s suggestion neither Christopher Ferrara nor Father Gruner simply dismissed Sedevacantism on the basis of the Third Secret of Fatima. They, especially Father Gruner, gave the opinion due consideration on the merits. Messrs. Salza and Siscoe have penned hundreds of pages to engaging the issues, rather than dismissing arguments with trite but catchy phrases as in Father Cekada’s video.

Like the Archbishop, whom I have heard discuss the issue in a recording of a conference given in English in the 1970s, Father Gruner did not dismiss the possibility that Paul VI or other post-Conciliar Popes would someday be adjudicated false or anti popes. Is it possible? Both the Archbishop and Father Gruner acknowledged the theoretical possibility but, unlike Father Cekada, they recognized that a single priest or even Archbishop was not competent to definitively declare a man to be an anti-pope and require obedience to such a private judgment. The Archbishop and Father Gruner humbly acknowledged the possibility, leaving the matter to competent authorities and simply kept praying and believing as the Church has always done.

Turning to the two attempts at argument that Father Cekada puts forward in the video, we see that he mischaracterizes what figures such as the Archbishop, Bishop Fellay, Father Gruner, and Messrs. Salza and Siscoe have said. They do not say only a statement stamped with infallibility is to be obeyed. They have consistently maintained that only a legitimate exercise of authority must be obeyed, which statement is simply a perennial Catholic principle. Starting from the premise that all authority comes from God, Catholic theology and philosophy have always held that the binding nature of a command comes not from the human agent who utters it but solely from the authority of God. As St. Thomas explains, the command of a Man holding an office vested with authority binds only to the extent that a command conforms to the Natural and Divine Law. When that Man, be he a pope, king or president, issues a command contrary to the higher law it does not bind in conscience and if it compels violation of higher law it must be refused. Thus, a command to use the Novus Ordo which offends against both the Divine and Natural Law does not bind in conscience not because it lacks a stamp of infallibility but because it fails to participate in God’s sovereign authority. This is the principle of legitimate disobedience to unjust commands.

Secondly, Father Cekada ridicules the analogy of the “bad Dad.” As Father Cekada well knows, analogies are never perfect but merely illustrative as they are analogical and not univocal. The analogy is merely meant to illustrate a corollary to the above defined principle. When a Man in authority issues an illegitimate command the command lacks the quality of authority requiring obedience but the fact of attempting to bind in conscience erroneously does not in and of itself depose the Man from the office which if used correctly could result in commands that require obedience. There are certainly many distinctions between a father and a pope but the analogy is merely meant to illustrate the principle.

Rather than Traditionalists fearing Sedevacantism, it seems that those holding the opinion rather fear the complexity of the crisis God has willed to permit His Church undergo. Rather than the arduous work of sifting through the confusion that has been coming out of the Vatican and chanceries for decades and applying certain Catholic principles to make proper distinctions between legitimate commands and those that lack authority, the opinion of Sedevacantism proposes an alluring simple black and white solution that avoids this difficult work of discernment. Like Conciliar Catholics who unthinkingly accept everything coming out of the Vatican press office, Sedevacantists take an analogous approach of accepting nothing. In different ways both avoid the more arduous path. Traditionalists who hold fast to the principle of discernment have nothing to fear. If Jorge Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ, they will render obedience when required, if he legitimately commands what is in harmony with higher law, and they will withhold obedience when he exceeds his authority. They will therefore not be led into erroneous actions.

If we learn from the Church someday that he was not a legitimate pope, then we still have nothing to fear. We will have only obeyed commands that are consistent with Divine and Natural Law and we will have made merely an error in factual judgment. We acknowledged a Man who has been accepted as the pope by Catholics throughout the world. We know from the Great Schism that merely being wrong about this factual issue in the context of confusing times does not separate one from the Church of Rome. Canonized saints were incorrect in their assessment of who in fact was the legitimate pope. Thus, we have nothing to fear if someday the Church adjudicates that one or more of the Men of the post Conciliar era were not legitimate popes. We will have held fast to the truths of the Faith and refused any command contrary to Divine or Natural Law and shown ourselves willing to submit to the legitimate authority.

Yet, as we shall see, the longer the crisis in the Church continues the less plausible is the opinion that each and every Man since 1958 has been an antipope (even if perhaps one or the other might have been). Rather, it is those holding the Sedevacantist opinion who should fear the state of affairs they hold to be true. If it were true that no pope has reigned since John XXIII, there are no valid Cardinals, and there is no Roman clergy (by definition if there is no bishop to validly and legitimately ordain and incardinate them into the Roman church), then the Church in her essential nature would have defected. There would be no method for continuing the Roman Church or the election of a new pope. The Sedevacantist opinion was more plausible in the early 1970s when there were pre-Conciliar Cardinals who could restore the papacy (or at least a Roman clergy to elect a pope according to prior practice). The longer the crisis continues the less plausible becomes the Sedevacantist opinion that none of the popes since 1958 have held office because the methods consistent with the Church’s Constitution for a valid papal election become impossible to achieve.

Father Cekada essentially admitted to me in email correspondence several years ago that the Sedevacantist opinion holders have no real answer to the preservation of the Church’s indefectibility. The most he could come up with was a Deus ex Machina assertion that God would in some in explicable way give the Church a pope. Yet, in the 2,000-year history of the Church, this is a complete novelty. Even in the darkest hour of the Great Schism and the Babylonian Captivity, the essential structures of the Church remained intact. God is certainly not bound absolutely by the structures of the Church He created (as He was not bound to transmit the merits of the redemption through a Church) yet having chosen to make use of the structures of the Church, He would not allow those structures to vanish through a complete lapse of a hierarchy for so long that the means of its own preservation have all become extinct.

The Church is a perfect society and as such must always be self-sufficient in pursuing its perfect end. Rather than fearing the misuse of God’s authority that requires subjects to apply the principles of higher law, those holding the Sedevacantist opinion should fear that with every passing year they implicitly deny the indefectibility of the Church.  Source

Comment:

Anybody here afraid of Sedevacantism? Speak!