excerpt from response to a sedevacantist’s remarks (in bold):

>>”Above you in authority”? Who would that be?<<

Holy Orders, either formally (with jurisdiction) or materially, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which has to remain in existence to the end of the world.

>>You mean to tell me that the by people like “Bishop” Robert Zollitsch,<<

There is nothing I can do as a layman, but continue on believing the deposit of faith.

>>Of course you and me, being laymen, have no authority to “declare” anything with legal force before the Church. But so what?<<

This line of thinking works both for those part of the structure and institution as well as for those who want to keep the Faith elsewhere.

>>(Strictly speaking, Bp. Thuc already declared the Holy See vacant in 1982 – so that’s already been done.)<<

It’s not legally binding. It’s not enforced. It is still for the Church to make judgment on Archbishop Thuc’s declaration. There is nothing we can do with this piece of information. Only a Pope or a Council can come around and make a proper judgment on it.

>>What we’re doing is RECOGNIZE that it is a FACT that people who pertinaciously deviate from the Catholic Faith in matters of dogma do not hold office in the Church. And that IS a fact. By analogy, though you have no authority to legally declare an accused man guilty of a crime, unless you are the judge, you can nevertheless deduce from the evidence of the case that the man is guilty.<<

Recognizing the FACT does not resort to making public statement as individuals that certain office or the Holy See is vacant, unless recognized so by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This FACT only suffices as a real discernment or a suspicion that has no consequence or bearing on the soul or the souls of any persons. Such FACT is on a personal level, not even ecclesiastical unless the hierarchy of the Catholic Church recognizes it.

Again, there is nothing else we can do except to hold fast to Traditions and the Faith, by all Catholics.

>>you can nevertheless deduce from the evidence of the case that the man is guilty.<<

Again, personal judgment which has no bearing on the soul or the souls of others, we cannot hold an ecclesiastical court based on this piece of information.

>>Ratzinger isn’t just SUSPECT of heresy. That was in the 50s. Do you think he’s confirmed the suspicion by now? Do you feel bound by his laws, teachings, and decrees?<<

There is a real possibility that Ratzinger is only a material, transitional pope. Again, assuming that he is the Pope, then only those things which are infallible have any real binding power. It is for the future Church to judge him or charge him of being a heretic. Assuming that he is guilty of heresy, ecclesiastical law has not caught up with him.

>>Sedevacantism is the only position that retains orthodoxy. Sedevacantism isn’t a dogma, to be sure, but it’s the only possible position because it alone guarantees orthodoxy. All other positions run into contradictions.<<

The doctrinal position of sedevacantism is man-made, human sanctioned, no real binding or authority. It doesn’t admit of the real issue, that is visibility and apostolicity of the Church (ordinary and universal jurisdiction) which are at sake. It has no real consequence or bearing on the soul or the souls of any persons. While it may be efficacious to a certain individual in order to keep the Faith, it doesn’t explain everything which ought to be professed by every Catholic which is that there has to be a hierarchy of the Church and that those who hold jurisdiction must be readily available.

>>The question is: Do the Novus Ordo bishops enjoy this authority and jurisdiction? Answer: “Heck, no!”<<

This is a matter of personal discernment which has no consequence or bearing on the soul or the souls of others.

>>You refer to their “unworthiness” but it is not mere unworthiness we’re talking about here, but a different religion: THEY DO NOT PROFESS THE CATHOLIC RELIGION. That’s why I will not be in communion with them.<<

It is another religion all together when the visibility of the Church or the apostolicity of the Church cannot be known. The problem isn’t where one group or another has the complete (fullness of powers) to be the Catholic Church. The problem is pervasive, and admits no bias. It is not just a problem of ecclesiastical infidelity or authority, but even a problem of legalism on the side of the Traditionalists, who have no authority but themselves, who have no other voice or binding conscience other than themselves, which has only to say that God has left them orphans.

>>That’s why I will not be in communion with them.<<

This is your personal prerogative. It is between you and God, yet you do not know who or where authority is or if there is even ordinary jurisdiction to appeal to. What good is the Catholic Church when you can decide for yourself who is in office and who isn’t? What can you do with the discernment that the Holy See is vacant? Any person or anybody in past, present, or future, could have made such determination, but when do we know that we are right, until a recognition or judgment comes from the Church?

>>You keep detecting “heresy” but never “heretics,” for some reason.<<

Yes, we can detect heresy or heretic in other laymen, but even if we make a discernment that such cleric or that ecclesiastic is a heretic, we cannot do much with it or declare anything since ecclesiastical recognition of the crime, or even the sin, has not been declared by the Catholic Church. For one person, such cleric is a heretic, but for another he is not. Which is it?

That is why we need the Catholic Church, and that is why we wait for judgment from the future Church and proper authorities.

Which is NOT to say that we shouldn’t keep the Faith, either continuing with the Sacraments or with Traditions.