Lord, that I may see.
'Sedevacantism' - that is, that the Church, for more than 55 years now, has no visible head since the death of Pope Pius XII (1958) with the Chair occupied by modern-day antipopes (who materially taught what were previously condemned by the Teaching Authority) - is nothing but a 'theological' opinion. The Sedevacantist N.O.W. themselves admit it: "there are clergy who are still either unable or unwilling to admit... the theological position of sedevacantism..." ("You Can't Have It 'Your Way': Response to Fr. Chazal's Argument on Sedevacantism"). And with this their own revelation: "despite some admitted difficulties, nevertheless, the only [italics, theirs - Discalced Carmelites of Traditional Observance] position that can make sense of the apostasy of the Modernist Vatican II Church without at the same time contradicting Catholic teaching [it is, for it is de fide: "...from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church" (Canon of Vatican I; cf., the "unanimous opinion" of the Fathers of the Church in our post "Against Sedevacantism-I") - by this same Canon is Sedevacantism therefore anathematized; cf., "Against Sedevacantism-II" why their equation of "perpetual" with "always" is absurd] (ibid.).
Now, the apostasy facilitated by the disoriented Vatican itself - an implication of the way the Great Sign in heaven introduced the Third Part of Her "Great Secret" in ending its Second Part: "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc." [the "etc." here obviously contains a detailed revelation why "the dogma of the Faith" will not be preserved in Rome - and this public complete revelation She desired to be revealed in 1960; that is, to forestall Vatican II which was convened in 1962] - effected a most astonishing if not amusing imbalance of mind, having been diabolically turned upside-down not in an expectedly horrifying manner but subtly in all deception the devil's angelic mind is still naturally capable of; corrupted mind disjointed from the Truth - therefore from certitude. But the Truth is the foundation of Catholic position hence there is certitude in the Catholic position - far from this is the "new opinion on the block" which could only identify itself as a 'theological position' yet dare claim, and despite admission of "some" self-built "admitted difficulties" [an understatement really: there are, in the first place, hosts of logical difficulties flowing from its effort to not to contradict the de fide reference given above and, in the second, the canonical difficulty, vis-a-vis the Pio-Benedictine Code of 1917 - the Canon Law of Catholic Tradition - of their interpretation of St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion on "manifest heresy" which they cloaked with the status of an overriding canon], to be "the Catholic position" that it is "the only one that can make sense..."
In another social media venue, the same Sedevacantist faction betrays a most glaring confusion of what really constitutes definitive Catholic teaching. When they were confronted by a Discalced Carmelite religious of Catholic Resistance on the public resistance position of the Apostle Saint Paul against his Superior, no less than the very Prince himself of the Apostles in his episode of dissimulation in the second chapter of Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, they claim:
@Io... Resistance can be against commands, not to magisterial teaching or universal laws.Expand
to which our religious replied:
@Novus... Gal. 2.11ff, w/St. Augustine & St. Thomas, deny your understanding of #Catholic Resistance.
@Io... Not at all. You need to go by the Church's teaching on these passages, not simply quote primary sources.
Sedevacantists point to the commentaries in the Haydock Bible on the Galatian episode where the Apostle Saint Paul withstood publicly his Superior to his face... because he was to blame [for belying the Gospel - the Truth - which the Apostle already preached to the Gentiles]. Hence, confusing the opinions of Bishop Challoner and Fr. Haydock which cited the "common opinion" -'til St. Thomas Aquinas expressed a different one - to be the definitive "Church's teaching" on the passages referred to!
@Io... The typical opinion followed on the matter is that of St .Augustine, that St. Peter was only guilty of imprudence in Gal 2.
@NOW Very interesting reply.
@NOW Your challenge is not the DEFINITVE "Church's teaching" @ all but your source's highlight of the Bp's & the Rev's opinion...
@NOW St. Paul, from v.14, takes St. Peter's dissimulation to be an ESSENTIAL undermining of the Faith...
@NOW... ... trashing the very core of the Gospel St. Paul was commissioned to preach. Therefore, the Angelic Doctor teaches "... It was NOT LIGHT" (Super Ep. S. Pauli, ad Gal) - this I highlight.
@NOW Nothing DEFINITIVE then contrary to what you asserted earlier. "Common opinion" does not settle ... therefore, the Angelic Doctor says NO - the letter and tenor of St. Paul's resistance (vv.14-21) does not support it.
And the Sedevacantists were silent.