AND
No need to worry. He isn’t a valid pope. There hasn’t been a valid pope since Pope Pius XII
But how could anyone hold to those concepts, thinking they were still "Catholic" (and thus also --- possibly thinking all "Protestants" were wrong from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation) without leaving and taking the name, or better put, the adjective catholic with them?
The position which bomb-throwers like Ann Barnhardt seems to take is illogically sedevacantist, similar to the illogical expressions of individuals such as Rev. Anthony Cekada in his own apparent agreement with sedevacantistism/sedeprivationism, when Cedaka turns to Rev. Donald J. Sanborn as a source.
For example, from that same link which "Repent and Believe" provided http://www.traditionalmass.org/issues/#c which I assume is Cedaka, or at least has his editorial approval (nothing hinders, bwaahahaa!) he endorses self-defeating contrariness such as;
What about the Vatican II popes?FAQs from "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
1. If what you are saying is true, what does it say about the Vatican II popes? It says that it is impossible that they be true Catholic popes.
2. Why can they not be true Catholic popes and true Catholic bishops?
They cannot be true Catholic popes because it is impossible that the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, which is Christ's authority, give to the universal Church false doctrines, false liturgical practices, and false disciplines.
3. Why cannot the authority of the Roman Catholic Church give to the universal Church false doctrines, false liturgical practices, and false disciplines?
Precisely because it is the authority of Christ. The Pope is assisted by the Holy Ghost in the promulgation of dogma and morals, and in the enactment of liturgical laws and pastoral disciplines. In the same way that it is unimaginable that Christ could promulgate these errors or enact these sinful disciplines, so it is unimaginable that the assistance which He gives to the Church through the Holy Ghost could permit such things. Hence, the fact that the Vatican II popes have done these things is a certain sign that they have do not have the authority of Christ.
Vatican II was indeed officially conducted & supported by RCC popes, both during and after (albeit not entirely without some criticisms).
If the RCC was in error previous to Vatican II, then there goes infallibility for 'ex cathedra' right out the door. If in error since Vatican II, then good-bye all the same to infallibility, even when squeezed & very tightly limited.
How then could it be logically possible, if Vatican II is seriously wrong, and that those popes during and since then be all invalid, while at the same time the RCC is being claimed to act with the "authority of Christ", for the RCC, in the persons of it's foremost bishops, ministers & theologians conducted, then approved & adopted documents produced in those 'Church Council' sessions as official, as surely as *they*, in college of Cardinals isn't it(?), elected all the popes since that college and method of election to office of Papacy, has been the way of the RCC to select it's own leadership, for many long centuries.
Maybe, just maybe the perceived-to-be RCC model and ecclesiolgy is itself central to the problem?
Somethings amiss, that should be obvious enough to anyone. I not sure that pointing towards other ecclesiastical organizations failings (either real or perceived) at this point, would make things any better...
Like his predecessor John Paul II, Benedict XVI was present at all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Whereas Karol Wojtyla took part as a bishop, the young Joseph Ratzinger did so as a theological expert. During and after the council he taught successively at the universities of Bonn (1959-1963), Münster (1963-1966), Tübingen (1966-1969), and Regensburg, until he was appointed Archbishop of Munich in 1977. In 1981 he became prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a post he held until the death of John Paul II in April 2005.
In his many publications Ratzinger continued to debate questions that arose during the council and in some cases expressed dissatisfaction with the council’s documents. In this respect he differs from Pope John Paul, who consistently praised the council and never (to my knowledge) criticized it.
Some may have found refuge in what they like to refer to as the hermeneutic of continuity, but the phrase itself is something of a mirage.
When the haze of special pleadings is swept away, then details (some significant) can seen to have evolved and changed, at times leaving stated positions & teachings which went before (and had produced particular attitudes widely held to be and repeated to be "truth" within RCC realms) or the latter changes (aimed at adjusting attitudes within the RCC, for example; as for ecumenicism) to be strikingly at odds with one another, the differences worked out only with loads & loads of blathering talkety-talk (oftentimes including special pleading) when those differences are caught sight of, and more closely examined.
“...If the RCC was in error previous to Vatican II, then there goes infallibility for ‘ex cathedra’ right out the door. If in error since Vatican II, then good-bye all the same to infallibility, even when squeezed & very tightly limited...”
Ah, and therein lies your error. The Church cannot err.
She never has and never will. The Holy Ghost protects her continually from error. Those who apostatize and contradict the Church, such as the below-mentioned “popes”, in spite of relinquishing titles ill-bestowed, or which linger in the minds of many, are no longer Catholic so how can they be clerics?
Thus it is that those infamous people (”John XXIII”, “Paul VI”, and those following AND don’t forget all the bishops, cardinals and theologians who supported the protestantization of the Church) are, like the protestants, heretics, and outside of the Church. So infallibility stands, while those who designed and profess the “new church” are heretics, and no longer (or never were) Catholic.
Thus, Bishop Chekada is correct and what contradiction then exists? For the Church was NOT in error prior to Vatican II.
Thus you must understand that for 50 years we haven’t had a valid pope and only those faithful to the unchanging doctrines as established by Christ and passed down through apostolic succession are part of the Church.
Just too set the record straight, Ann Barnhardt is NOT a sedevacantist, a belief she abhors and a movement she thoroughly condemns.
I never claimed Francis not to be the Pope, or any of the post Vatican II Popes to be anything less. That does not mean that their pronouncements are correct ... Please note that the truly damaging stuff is always done NOT ex cathedra, but usually under the pretext of “liturgical reforms,” etc. The innovators are very clever in this regard, just as they always skirt the boundaries of material heresy, but not formal heresy - and thus get their dirty deeds accomplished w/o getting booted from the Church.
I will state that the New Mass (Novus Ordo) while valid (insofar as goes the Holy Eucharist - if the right form (words), matter and intent of the priest are all present) is yet ILLICIT, b/c it violates Quo Primum - the Papal Bull (Constitution, i.e.: law) promulgated in 1570 by Pope Saint Pius V as a bulwark against the Protestant heresy; and to be considered as valid in perpetuity. Violation of this Constitution incurs the excommunication and the wrath of God..
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/05/07/st-pope-pius-v-quo-primum/
Keep in mind we are dealing with demonic (once angelic) intelligence - Lucifer was the most intelligent and beautiful of the angels.
Vatican II was NEVER pronounced under the doctrine of infallibility ‘ex cathedra’ ... It was announced not as a dogmatic council, but rather as a “pastoral” council. If you are aware of Catholic history, we have had bad popes and at least one other “evil” council.
When God is truly pissed at His people, He allows them to fall into the clutches of bad or even evil leaders - both secular and ecclesiastical.