The Hocus Pocus of The Hopeless Popeless

Using the S/N I am not Spartacus, ABS went into the Liar's Den to confront the Sedevacantists. The Novus Ordo Watch moderator (Prolly Mario Derksen) makes it clear he is a schismatic who has severed the Bonds of Unity with his Bishop and he says there has been no Pope since 1958.

The technique used to try and defend the indefensible is very childish and on the level of Pee Wee Herman's I know you are but what am I?

When a dogma or definition from The Magisterium is posted the response from the schismatic sedes is that it is the faithful Catholic who is the one violating it.

It is the best the charlatans can do and it soon reaches the point where I am not spartacus is banned but not before the moderator tells IANS to search out theologians speculating about how the Catholic Church could get a pope if, during some future conclave, the entire Cardinalate is killed by a nuclear weapon.

Well, no doubt the sedes do have theologians striving to imagine a scenario in the future in which the Church could elect a Pope because, as of now, the Sedes think there has been no Pope since 1958 which means all of the Cardinals who elected Pope Pius XII are dead and none of the subsequent Popes were real Popes which means they could not have held consistories to create new Cardinals which means the entire Hierarchy, Popes, Cardinals, and Bishops no longer exist which means there is no way to elect a Pope.

This is the Hocus Pocus required to imagine a future Papal election conducted after the entire hierarchy has ceased to exist.

The funny thing is many sedevacantists, and those who succor them, claim that this insane schism is the most intellectually defensible reaction to the modern problems within the Church.

Here is the copy and paste from the Novus Ordo Watch Sect

  • I am not Spartacus     • 2 days ago
    Where is the visible Catholic Church with a Pope etc?
    Does it exist?
    The Roman Catechism teaches:
    It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church.
    but y'all say there has been no Pope for 62 - sixty two - years.
    Well?

    • pastedGraphic_1.png


    • Novus Ordo Watch       Moderator I am not Spartacus • 2 days ago
      Well, are you telling us that Jorge Bergoglio is establishing and preserving unity in his church? Do the people who recognize him as Pope and profess to be Catholics adhere to "one Faith"? Do Michael Voris and Richard Rohr share the same religion? Do Roger Mahony and Athanasius Schneider?
      Sedevacantists aren't saying the Pope is optional. We're saying we don't have one - or at least we don't know who he is, if there is one, because he definitely isn't Jorge Bergoglio.

      • pastedGraphic.png


      • I am not Spartacus         Novus Ordo Watch • 2 days ago
        You didn't answer the questions:
        Where is the visible Catholic Church with a Pope etc?
        Does it exist?
        The Roman Catechism teaches:
        It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church.
        but y'all say there has been no Pope for 62 - sixty two - years, which is a denial of Trent and Tradition.
        Trying to shift the burden back to IANS is just a way for you to avoid answering the questions.
        The reason you do that is because you reject Catholic Tradition and Doctrine that the Church is a visible society with a Pope.
        If you say the Church has failed, then you are constrained to confess that the promises of Jesus were not worthy of trust; i.e. that He is a lair.
        IANS could go on but it won't be necessary.
        All IANS wanted to do is show how it is y'all reject Tradition that a Pope is necessary.
        You hold to the doctrine of Protestantism that the Church is an invisible society of believers

        • pastedGraphic_1.png


        • Novus Ordo Watch           Moderator I am not Spartacus • 2 days ago
          The Catholic Church exists in her essential constitution, precisely as the Lord founded her and guaranteed her to exist until the end of time. Whether I can figure out exactly what's going on in our day is another matter. It is clear that the Church does not cease to exist if there is no Pope. That the Pope is necessary in principle, conceded; that he is necessary at all times, denied.
          And to be clear: I do not insist, absolutely, that there has been NO Pope during the last 62 years, only that I don't know of one, and those who are generally reputed to have been Popes then, were definitely not it. Therefore, if Catholic doctrine should require me to affirm that there was a Pope during some of that time, I am more than happy to affirm that - I just don't know who it was.
          We are dealing here, most likely, with the "mystery of iniquity" prophesied in Scripture. Please pardon me for not being able to unravel the whole mystery. It's called a mystery for a reason. A Catholic's job is to do the following:
        • (a) profess Catholic doctrine integrally, in every respect
        • (b) accept and proclaim what is manifest to the senses
        • (c) draw necessary conclusions from (a) and (b) 
        • (d) leave the rest in the realm of mystery, because we have not been given all the answers
          Your argument assumes, falsely, that "I don't know" is never a legitimate answer, and that a Catholic can never leave anything to mystery, when that is ultimately what the virtue of Faith demands. You also assume, falsely, that "I don't know" means "I deny that....." It doesn't mean that.
          If I believed the abominable heresy that the Catholic Church has failed, I wouldn't be wasting my time being a sedevacantist. We're sedevacantists because we believe in the indefectibility of the Church and that is the only position that salvages it.
          I don't know you but I assume you believe Francis is Pope. If Francis is Pope, then it doesn't matter if we hold to a Protestant doctrine. Which we don't hold to, obviously, but I'm just saying. You can't have it both ways. If Francis is a true Pope, then Catholicism is false.
          But Catholicism is NOT false. Ergo.


              • pastedGraphic.png


              • I am not Spartacus                 Novus Ordo Watch • 21 hours ago • edited
                OK, thank you. You admit you have no communion with a Bishop or Pope which means you are a schismatic.
                Believing there has been no Pope since 1958 you must admit there are no longer any living Cardinals which could vote for a pope you might accept and that is just another way of saying that there will be no more Popes in history which is sort of stretching the idea of an interregnum just a tad :)

                • pastedGraphic_1.png


                • Novus Ordo Watch                   Moderator I am not Spartacus • 19 hours ago
                  Alright, let's start with some basic facts: Schism is the *refusal* of submission/communion, not the absence of submission due to the fact that there's no one to submit to. That is a HUGE difference in principle.
                  Correct, there are no longer any living cardinals that we know of. You may want to look up what theologians have written would happen in the event that the college of cardinals became extinct, for example, through a nuclear blast on Rome when they're all gathered in conclave.

                  • −
                • pastedGraphic_2.png


                • 2Vermont                   I am not Spartacus • 18 hours ago • edited
                  No, he admits to having no communion with a heretic "bishop" and "pope" which means he is ..... Catholic.

          • pastedGraphic.png


          • I am not Spartacus             Novus Ordo Watch • a day ago
            Francis is Pope and God chose him for that office.
            At least that is what The New Roman Missal, Father Lascance, says

          • pastedGraphic.png


          • I am not Spartacus             Novus Ordo Watch • a day ago • edited
            According to the 1945, The New Roman Missal of Father Lasance, yes, Franics is Pope and was chosen for that office by God.
            See page 482 of The Good Friday Liturgy
            The same order is observed in the supplications that follow.
            Let us pray, also, for our most blessed Pope N., that our Lord and God, Who hath chosen him in the order of the episcopacy, may preserve him safe and unharmed to His holy Church, to rule God's holy people.
            Let us pray
            Y. Let us kneel
            If. Arise.
            Almighty, eternal God, in Whose judgment all things are founded, look propitiously upon
            our prayers and, of Thy loving kindness, preserve unto us our chosen bishop, that the
            Christian people, who are governed
            by Thine authority, may, under
            so great a pontiff, be increased
            in the merits of their bellef.
            ++++++++++++++++++++
            A sedevacantist has no communion with the local Bishop or the Pope but y'all insist that is somehow part of some mystery when the plain and simple truth is that you are intentional schismatics.
            Now, it is obvious why you want to deflect from the plain and simple truth about what is required to be a catholic - and it is not what you substituted in place of the requirements- but one must be part of that visible society defined by Saint Robert Bellarmine and whose definition has been used by the Magisterium for hundreds of years.

            • pastedGraphic_1.png


            • Novus Ordo Watch               Moderator I am not Spartacus • 19 hours ago
              Your entire argument is a gigantic instance of question begging: From the outset you assume as true the very thing that we dispute, namely, that Francis is the Pope and that the apostate hierarchy under him is the legitimate Catholic hierarchy. You don't argue for it, you presuppose it.

          • pastedGraphic.png


          • I am not Spartacus             Novus Ordo Watch • 20 hours ago
            That the Pope is necessary in principle, conceded; that he is necessary at all times, denied.
            Scratch a schismatic sede reveal a heretic
            First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ
            Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record.
            1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37], in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.
            2. Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38].
            3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
            4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.
            5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41].
            6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.
            ++++++++++
            Dear Mr. Derksen. Thank you for the honest and peaceful exchange. You have no problem plainly confessing you are a schismatic heretic who has abandoned the faith you once held (See 2 John 9 for the consequences). You no longer have God.
            IANS has a suggestion. Rename this Blog
            Hopeless and Popeless
            Again, thank you
            Adios
            −

          • −
        • pastedGraphic_3.png


        • 2c3n1 .           I am not Spartacus • a day ago
          I am not Spartacus: Fr. Francis Doyle told us in 1927 that Suarez taught that the Church could have gone 51 years without a pope, did they both deny Trent and Tradition? Several theologians after Vatican I have told us that the Church can go without a pope for this long.and longer. These men have debunked your entire thesis that the Church must have a pope at all times. What say you now?
          −
          • pastedGraphic.png


          • I am not Spartacus             2c3n1 . • a day ago
            The theological speculations of theologians are not part of the magisterium until they have been baptised/approved and promulgated as such

              • −
            • pastedGraphic_3.png


            • 2c3n1 .               I am not Spartacus • 15 hours ago
              I am not Spartacus: You didn't answer the question. Did those great teachers of the faith such a Suarez deny Trent and Tradition? You see, they debunk your entire thesis that the Church must have a pope at all times. You don't know what you're talking about.




    • pastedGraphic_2.png


    • 2Vermont       I am not Spartacus • 2 days ago • edited
      He's baaaaaaack. I just wonder how long it will take him to whip out the Wycliffe quote, get refuted, and then say "Adios".

      • pastedGraphic.png


      • I am not Spartacus         2Vermont • a day ago • edited
        By choice you have severed the Bonds of Communion with your Bishop and Pope and you are a schismatic.
        St Robert Bellarmine on who is a member of the Church: the assembly of men united in the in the profession of the same Christian faith and in the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular, that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth the Roman Pontiff
        You are not a trad. You are not a Catholic. You are a schismatic who has willingly severed the Bonds of unity.
        As for y'all claims of being a member of an invisible church (you do have to make that claim having disavowed a visible society) that error was corrected in Mystici Corporis by a Pope you do accept, Pope Pius XII.

          • −
        • pastedGraphic_3.png


        • 2c3n1 .           I am not Spartacus • 15 hours ago
          I am not Spartacus: You have severed bonds with the Catholic Church by recognizing an apostate as pope. St. Robert Bellarmine: Therefore,
        • the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is 
        • manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same 
        • way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the 
        • Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.
          You are not a Catholic. You are a heretic that rejects the teaching of Pope Pius XII on what makes a person a member of the Church from the very document you cite.