Post by orthopapist on Jun 19, 2016 0:48:49 GMT -5
It is difficult to describe all the parameters involved, however let us discuss the possibilities proposed and try to analyse them.
Fr. Cekada states in "Infallibility, Traditionalists, and the Pope" [1], Appendix 5
"Where Would We Get a True Pope?", p.14:
"IF THE POST-VATICAN II popes are not true popes, how might the Church one day get a true pope again? Here are some theories:
1.Direct Divine Intervention. This scenario is found in the writings of some approved mystics.
2. The Material/Formal Thesis.This holds that should a post-Vatican II pope publicly renounce the heresies of the post-Conciliar Church,he would automatically become a true pope.
3.An Imperfect General Council. The theologian Cajetan (1469–1534) and others teach that, should the College of Cardinals be-come extinct, the right to elect a pope would devolve to the clergy of Rome, and then to the universal Church. (de Compara-tione13, 742, 745)"
^Hence, I proceed to question 1) why these proposals have not been critically examined? Also, since they are mutually exclusive, one wonders 2) if it is possible to argue for the correct alternative of the three suggested and prove using simple reason that the other possibilities would not work. Also one may ask 3) if there are any more alternatives not mentioned, or alternatives within the categories mentioned.
Bp. Sanborn in "Explanation of the Thesis" [2] states the same options in different words, noting also the "indultists" and "lefebvrists" as categories, but groups together sedeprivationists and sedevacantists under the category of "sedevacantists", which he refers to as "totalists" (sedevacantists) or "material-formalists" (sedeprivationists). I believe this is a category error, that sedeprivationism is not a "form of sedevacantism" but is its own schism and/or heresy "in a league of its own". This is easily seen for instance if there was an agreed-upon conclavist election without controversy, for instance if a cardinal had broken away and elected someone and all sedes were united under that person, the sedeprivationist would still uphold the elections of conciliarism as being legally valid and the alternative cardinal election as invalid, since the conciliar cardinals are "material cardinals" and their election produces a "material pope".
Bp. Sanborn then states that either "conclavism" or "God electing via miracle" are the possible resolutions to totalism/sedevacantism. He also notes that some are "opinionists", or that is, they may not think it matters if there is a pope or who it is practically speaking.
Not mentioned is the possibility of the world ending, which has been dubbed "terminal sedevacantism"; some thought God would not give any more popes until the end of the world. Also, with respect to the category of "conclavism", Fr. Cekada in #3 only notes one tier of electors, where I believe also the clergy of Rome may have elected, and then the universal Church. Hence with respect to conclavism, we can consider that either an election my have already happened, or a new one could happen. Of ones that could have happened, this includes any "secret" election, for instance the "Siri theory" (that cardinal Siri was elected in 1958) or just the general idea that someone else may have been elected pope secretly (cardinal Ottaviani was also reportedly possibly elected).
Therefore, the Spectrum of those who claim to be Catholic is:
1. The political Left/Liberals not under the Vatican; for instance "Roman Catholic Womanpriests" or other such groups.
2. The Conciliar Schism
3. The Indult ("latin" masses under the Vatican) including Eastern rites
4. SSPX (sedeplenists) and "indepedent" chapels that follow conciliar papal claimants
5. Sedeprivationism
6. Sedevacantists
6A. Sedevacantist Opinionism
6B. Terminal Sedes ("terminalism")
6C. Sedes favorable to Conclavism (including 7B)
6D. Sedes waiting for a miracle ("mysticalism")
7. Conclavists (there are a few conclavist papal claimants)
7A. Secret elections ("Siri Theory")
7B. Publicly Known Elections
(8.) Mysticalist Conclavists
(9.) "Opinionism"
(10.) Feeneyism/Jansenism
#s1-4 have been dealt with in other places, this post is presuming that John 23rd-Francis cannot possibly be true popes given Roncalli's pre-election heresies [3]. #9 Opinionism seems inherently contradictory, as though it may be a practical measure of charity towards others, logically only one of multiple mutually exclusive propositions are possible, hence only sedevacantism or conciliarism or conclavism can be true, etc. #10 Feeneyism may also pair with aforementioned categories (though not all of them) and has been covered in other places, though represents a heresy and schism which can create new categories (for instance, feeneyite sedevacantists would not be in communion with non-feeneyite sedevacantists or even if sedevacantists agreed upon a pope, feeneyites would not follow such a pope).
So, among the options for analysis in the "sedevacantist spectrum", we have #6A opinionist sedevacantism, #5 sedeprivationism, #6B terminalism, #6D/8 mysticalism, & #6C/7 conclavism.
Analysis/Commentary of Sedevacantist Spectrum:
#6A opinionist sedevacantism
As already noted, #9 is inherently contradictory; I mention it again here especially with relation to sedevacantism, because when Bp. Sanborn wrote against opinionism, he was writing against the opinion that #2-6 were all basically viable options. Here I am writing against the idea that #1-10 are viable, or specifically #5-8. More specifically, "sedevacantist opinionism" would typically refer to a tolerance of #5-6/7B. However since these are mutually exclusive, again this could be a posture of charity towards others but is not in itself a defense of a particular position one believes to be correct. Hence this position is itself not really a position and is inherently untenable. Which of the positions is absolutely correct, however, may require more writing and research to establish, however basically the problem with "sedevacantist opinionism" has been the abandonment of seeing through these mutually exclusive propositions unto the contradictions that show which of the alternatives must be the correct one.
#5 sedeprivationism
A bit more work should be done on refuting this position, but a bit has been [4]. It is not a position held by pre-Vatican 2 theologians and hence is considered novel - either a pope is elected, or a heretic is "elected" and thus the election is invalid. Sedeprivationism poses a third alternative which we believe does not exist, that a material or formal heretic, when elected, becomes a "material pope". Now this "theory" came out of the confusion of Paul VI approving a heresy in December 1965; it was thought that a true pope approved a heresy and became a heretic, therefore he was "materially pope" but not "formally"; he was physically in the place of the pope and people treated him as a pope, but he wasn't one. However, even admitting this proposition, then upon the next election of a pope, JP1, the conciliar heresies would have been publicly accepted by JP1, therefore he was presumed to have accepted them and was at least a material heretic incapable of being elected. However, then more information has come out that Roncalli was a pre-election heretic, thus was incapable of being elected pope in 1958. This should therefore exclude the sedeprivationist proposition, except they have also shifted with the sedevacantists to (I believe, in a sense) claiming that Roncalli was elected a "material pope". Now the sedevacantists had the same reasoning with Paul VI, except that they believed when he approved heresy he became non-pope at that point; it was only later that he was thought to be a pre-election heretic, and then that Roncalli was a pre-election heretic and so when elected started a schism (and so Paul VI's election would merely continue the schism and there would be no need to question if he was a heretic or not as he was carrying on a schismatic line). So overall sedeprivationism seems untenable, though maybe a little more research could put this to rest.
#6B terminalism
It was proposed by some sedes that Paul VI was the anti-Christ (I think a book was written that had this convincing thesis), since by instituting the novus ordo missal in 1969 he abolished the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Also given that no known pope was elected, there was a thought that the world was coming to an end. Hence some sedes hold that no pope will be elected but that the world will simply end before a pope can be elected. An interpretation circulated that since the cardinals are the exclusive electors of the pope, that therefore since they all defected and died that it was illegal and impossible to elect any more popes (Pius XII had strong legislation stating that no one could change the laws of election in a vacancy, which is an ecclesiastical law and not divine law - I believe the document is Apostolica Vacante Sedis). Some "terminalists" may also be "home aloner" sedevacantists who believe that most sede clergy are not lawful clergy, hence the Church is in a sense "dead" or "terminally ill". One such "terminalist" anathematized any who state that Peter shall have any more successors after the conciliar schism [5]. Paul VI was not the anti-Christ though as he did not perform miracles nor make it impossible to sell or buy without the mark of the Beast, and other things. Also I do not believe that we are incapable of electing a pope or that it can be proven that the world is ending. Hence I do not believe this view is tenable.
#6D/8 mysticalism
Some sedes are waiting for a miracle to elect a pope. However, there are a bunch of #8 "mysticalist conclavists" [6] already, so one wonders why they don't accept that God "miraculously" appointed one of these claimants as pope? Some think that the Blessed Virgin Mary Herself, or Sts. Peter and Paul, or someone else will personally crown the next pope as pope. This seems in the realm of possibly to consider or argue about, however this whole idea is based on the rejection of conclavism, or that Catholic sedevacantists are capable of electing a pope. I do not believe Catholics are incapable, hence I find no reason to wait for such a miracle. Also, if such a miracle occurred, it would need to be publicly verifiable, leading to the conversion of virtually the whole world. It seems unlikely such a thing would happen, but otherwise, if the miracle wasn't that public, how would Catholics ever be able to know who the pope is? We would have to basically trust in a mysticalist claimant like those who already exist. Other such difficulties exist with this position.
#6C/7 conclavism
Last we consider conclavism. I believe this is the correct resolution; it is the "normal" resolution of any vacancy of the Holy See (that Catholics who recognize that there is no pope, proceed to elect a pope). There are three categories of propositions: 1) (7A) A secret election ("Siri Theory") already happened and there is a "hidden pope", (7B) a conclave of Catholics elected a pope publicly, (6C) or the Church has no pope and should elect one eventually. Conclavism was the default remedy pursued to end the vacancy of the Holy See after 1958 by those like Fr. Saenz y Arriaga who tried to organize an "alternative" conclave of cardinals. There were talks within the SSPX or Thuc line of bishops about electing a pope, however no election materialized. Hence, since the clergy did not implement a conclavist election in a timely manner and/or were prevented from doing so, this led to the "sedevacantist opinionism" basically of not knowing how to resolve the vacancy or being skeptical about the ability to reason through and find any resolution.
Recently I considered the proposition that if Siri was elected pope secretly, this would send sedevacantists all in to material schism, which seemed odd that no one had thought of this that I could see online. Also, the idea of there having been a secret election somewhere suggests that no such conclavist election should take place, in case it just creates a schism with a true pope who has already been elected. However, since the Church is a visible society, I propose that if such a claimant had been secretly elected, yet the Church practically accepted a rival claimant and thus convalidated him, it seems possible that the rival claimant would have actually become pope. Other such resolutions are possible, that most of the Church could go in to material schism in unity under a material antipope, and then God might reveal the true pope in hiding. However, since we cannot know if a pope had been elected or not, it seems necessary to elect a pope, since if no secret pope was elected, then we elected a pope. Or as mentioned if this new election produced a material antipope, hopefully God would soon sort things out. But otherwise it seems safer to safeguarding unity, to elect a pope. Hence I reject the idea of a "secret election" as being of concern, as no further evidence has surfaced about any actual lineage of Siri having made cardinals and elected a successor, nor Ottaviani. And if such a conclavist election happened quietly as has been suggested with "Pope Krav" [7], the same kinds of principles apply (again, no information has come forward on if there was really such an election like this in the 70s; this claimant apparently really existed, but was a comedian; now that we have the internet, no further serious claim has been advanced). Therefore I believe 7A is practically eliminated.
6C (holding a new sedevacantist-conclavist election) is dependent upon rejecting previous conclavist elections like pope Michael's which can be verified to have happened, or other such claimants who held elections after him such as "Pius XIII" or "Linus II" [8]. The former election of a priest (I believe by laymen) has not had a new election after the death of their claimant, and the latter as far as we know has stepped down actually or practically (that election involved sede bishops in Rome). Pope Michael's election happened in 1990, whereas I think the two mentioned were 1994 and 1998. Hence we argue by the principle of "first in time, first in right" after what was said of the Western Schism, that pope Michael's election would hold over these other claimants whose elections were of a similar kind. We would ask why they wouldn't join a previously held conclave rather than hold their own. If, however, two elections had happened at the same time somehow without the two knowing of each other by some miscommunication, then the situation could have been resolved with a new election.
As has been stated elsewhere, there are tiers of electors. The cardinals should have elected a pope, and if they failed then the bishops in a general imperfect council, and if they didn't elect then the clergy of Rome, and finally the Universal Church may elect if the Roman clergy do not elect. Now the first three tiers of election did not happen. The last remaining Pius XII cardinals died, and I believe all the bishops with ordinary jurisdiction either died or joined the conciliar schism, hence neither of the first two tiers were possible. Also there were no known clergy of Rome who didn't defect to the conciliar church (as far as I know), hence that tier also became impossible. This leaves us with the necessity of an election by any Catholic left over. Therefore pope Michael researched and sent a copy of his book "Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century?" to all the chapels listed on Radko Janskey's list of traditional chapels (equivalent to a today's Traditio.com). While many of these chapels and its people were not legally Catholic, so long as a Catholic was elected and accepted by eligible sedevacantists (of who there were probably very few), such an election would have been ok. Hence only a few assembled to elect pope Michael. Therefore I conclude pope Michael is pope as I don't know how otherwise a "better" conclave is to be organized. If somehow pope Michael's election was proved invalid by some principle, then what would have to happen is basically a repeat of his election done with more people. Since numbers don't determine validity, again I conclude that this is unnecessary, with the exception of if some unknown disqualification is found.
Hence my particular problem with #6C of sedes advocating a new election is that it is basically going to be a repeat of pope Michael's election, so instead we ought to just accept the small pope Michael election. Waiting for bishops or clergy of Rome to elect, ends in practical terminalism or actual terminalism if one believes the clergy of Rome to be the lowest necessary tier of electors and that they have all joined conciliarism or died out. And if sede bishops or sede clergy who live in Rome elect, but they obtained orders technically illicitly along Lefebvre or Thuc lines, this isn't the same kind of general imperfect council or election by clergy of Rome who possess ordinary jurisdiction (which I believe is implied in these tiers of electors), but rather such lines are vagrant clergy who have offered sacraments under "supplied jurisdiction". Hence waiting for their election is again functionally equivalent to an election like pope Michael's.
Bp. Sanborn offers three arguments against conclavism in "Explanation of the Thesis" [8]:
I. First, who would be legally designated to vote? How would they be legally designated to vote?
II. Second, what principle would oblige Catholics to recognize the winner of such an election as the legitimate successor of St. Peter? Conclavism is simply a fancy name for mob rule, where the ones that shout the loudest carry the rest of the mob. The Catholic Church is not a mob, but a divinely constituted society with rules and legality .
III. Third, and most importantly , one cannot make the jump from the natural right of men of choosing for themselves heads of government to their right to vote for a pope. The Church is not a natural institution, as civil society is. There is no inherent natural right in the members of the Church to choose the Roman Pontiff. The choice of Roman Pontiff was originally made by Christ Himself in St. Peter, and the mode of choice thereafter was regulated by law .
I believe these have simple answers. #I we stated the various tiers of electors; if there had been interest in the pope Michael election, there could have been a delegate elector for each group and then an election held with all the delegates. Bp. Sanborn had written in "The Dissent of Faith" about the principle of convalidation, that any such eligible male Catholic would become pope if elected and accepted with practical unanimity by Catholics. This is manageable when legally the only Catholics are sedevacantists; Bp. Sanborn's sedeprivationist view however holds that all conciliarists are legally Catholic, which would make convalidation much more difficult. In any event, it certainly has been proposed who the electors are, I would have to see arguments against why the Universal Church cannot elect, and so on.
#II, the principle of there being no pope and the necessity of electing a pope. An acceptance by practical unanimity would especially convalidate the election and therefore create a binding election. The "mob" can convalidate, and the universal Church "mob" can elect.
#III the election of the universal Church conforms to the divine law of the necessity of having perpetual successors. This seems to be a denial of Journet and Billot's teaching that the universal Church may elect when the electors are unknown, and also of the elections of the early Church which followed no set method.
Hence I do not believe these reasons stand, however they are among the few arguments I see in the "sedevacantist spectrum" against conclavism. Another noted that if pope Michael's election had more people at it, then things would be different. However, why not acquire more people to accept the election now, and why didn't more drum up an interest in the election back then.
I conclude then that #7B the publicly known election of pope Michael is the correct position; yet if this election was not valid (by some reason unknown to me currently) then that #6C would be correct, that sedevacantists must seek a new election. I believe these are the only reasonable propositions and that whatever discussions occur among sedevacantists and conclavists, it is about working out #7B or #6C.
Thank you for reading and I urge any charitable insights you may have to contribute.
Citations:
1. www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf
2. mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf
3. MHFM collection on Angelo Roncalli: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/13_JohnXXIII.pdf
4. sedeprivationism.tumblr.com
5. Not the correct anathema, but the site I saw it on: catholicendtimetruths.com/second-coming-anathema/24/08/2014
6. Scroll to see list of claimants: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclavism
7. Ibid
8. Ibid (see other claimants on page if you wish)
9. Ibid Citation #2, p.8
Appendix Note:
Bp. Sanborn's "Explanation of the Thesis" is a bit of this kind of analysis of proposed Sedevacantist Resolutions as applied to the position he took, sedeprivationism against sedevacantism/mysticalism/conclavism. This could be perceived as an analogous such analysis yet in favor of conclavism vs. sedeprivationism/sedevacantism/mysticalism/terminalism/opinionism/etc. This is also a draft, there is probably more to add, like Bp. Sanborn in the aforementioned writing also offers reasoning against the mysticalist position which I would add to that section in a future writing of this.
Fr. Cekada states in "Infallibility, Traditionalists, and the Pope" [1], Appendix 5
"Where Would We Get a True Pope?", p.14:
"IF THE POST-VATICAN II popes are not true popes, how might the Church one day get a true pope again? Here are some theories:
1.Direct Divine Intervention. This scenario is found in the writings of some approved mystics.
2. The Material/Formal Thesis.This holds that should a post-Vatican II pope publicly renounce the heresies of the post-Conciliar Church,he would automatically become a true pope.
3.An Imperfect General Council. The theologian Cajetan (1469–1534) and others teach that, should the College of Cardinals be-come extinct, the right to elect a pope would devolve to the clergy of Rome, and then to the universal Church. (de Compara-tione13, 742, 745)"
^Hence, I proceed to question 1) why these proposals have not been critically examined? Also, since they are mutually exclusive, one wonders 2) if it is possible to argue for the correct alternative of the three suggested and prove using simple reason that the other possibilities would not work. Also one may ask 3) if there are any more alternatives not mentioned, or alternatives within the categories mentioned.
Bp. Sanborn in "Explanation of the Thesis" [2] states the same options in different words, noting also the "indultists" and "lefebvrists" as categories, but groups together sedeprivationists and sedevacantists under the category of "sedevacantists", which he refers to as "totalists" (sedevacantists) or "material-formalists" (sedeprivationists). I believe this is a category error, that sedeprivationism is not a "form of sedevacantism" but is its own schism and/or heresy "in a league of its own". This is easily seen for instance if there was an agreed-upon conclavist election without controversy, for instance if a cardinal had broken away and elected someone and all sedes were united under that person, the sedeprivationist would still uphold the elections of conciliarism as being legally valid and the alternative cardinal election as invalid, since the conciliar cardinals are "material cardinals" and their election produces a "material pope".
Bp. Sanborn then states that either "conclavism" or "God electing via miracle" are the possible resolutions to totalism/sedevacantism. He also notes that some are "opinionists", or that is, they may not think it matters if there is a pope or who it is practically speaking.
Not mentioned is the possibility of the world ending, which has been dubbed "terminal sedevacantism"; some thought God would not give any more popes until the end of the world. Also, with respect to the category of "conclavism", Fr. Cekada in #3 only notes one tier of electors, where I believe also the clergy of Rome may have elected, and then the universal Church. Hence with respect to conclavism, we can consider that either an election my have already happened, or a new one could happen. Of ones that could have happened, this includes any "secret" election, for instance the "Siri theory" (that cardinal Siri was elected in 1958) or just the general idea that someone else may have been elected pope secretly (cardinal Ottaviani was also reportedly possibly elected).
Therefore, the Spectrum of those who claim to be Catholic is:
1. The political Left/Liberals not under the Vatican; for instance "Roman Catholic Womanpriests" or other such groups.
2. The Conciliar Schism
3. The Indult ("latin" masses under the Vatican) including Eastern rites
4. SSPX (sedeplenists) and "indepedent" chapels that follow conciliar papal claimants
5. Sedeprivationism
6. Sedevacantists
6A. Sedevacantist Opinionism
6B. Terminal Sedes ("terminalism")
6C. Sedes favorable to Conclavism (including 7B)
6D. Sedes waiting for a miracle ("mysticalism")
7. Conclavists (there are a few conclavist papal claimants)
7A. Secret elections ("Siri Theory")
7B. Publicly Known Elections
(8.) Mysticalist Conclavists
(9.) "Opinionism"
(10.) Feeneyism/Jansenism
#s1-4 have been dealt with in other places, this post is presuming that John 23rd-Francis cannot possibly be true popes given Roncalli's pre-election heresies [3]. #9 Opinionism seems inherently contradictory, as though it may be a practical measure of charity towards others, logically only one of multiple mutually exclusive propositions are possible, hence only sedevacantism or conciliarism or conclavism can be true, etc. #10 Feeneyism may also pair with aforementioned categories (though not all of them) and has been covered in other places, though represents a heresy and schism which can create new categories (for instance, feeneyite sedevacantists would not be in communion with non-feeneyite sedevacantists or even if sedevacantists agreed upon a pope, feeneyites would not follow such a pope).
So, among the options for analysis in the "sedevacantist spectrum", we have #6A opinionist sedevacantism, #5 sedeprivationism, #6B terminalism, #6D/8 mysticalism, & #6C/7 conclavism.
Analysis/Commentary of Sedevacantist Spectrum:
#6A opinionist sedevacantism
As already noted, #9 is inherently contradictory; I mention it again here especially with relation to sedevacantism, because when Bp. Sanborn wrote against opinionism, he was writing against the opinion that #2-6 were all basically viable options. Here I am writing against the idea that #1-10 are viable, or specifically #5-8. More specifically, "sedevacantist opinionism" would typically refer to a tolerance of #5-6/7B. However since these are mutually exclusive, again this could be a posture of charity towards others but is not in itself a defense of a particular position one believes to be correct. Hence this position is itself not really a position and is inherently untenable. Which of the positions is absolutely correct, however, may require more writing and research to establish, however basically the problem with "sedevacantist opinionism" has been the abandonment of seeing through these mutually exclusive propositions unto the contradictions that show which of the alternatives must be the correct one.
#5 sedeprivationism
A bit more work should be done on refuting this position, but a bit has been [4]. It is not a position held by pre-Vatican 2 theologians and hence is considered novel - either a pope is elected, or a heretic is "elected" and thus the election is invalid. Sedeprivationism poses a third alternative which we believe does not exist, that a material or formal heretic, when elected, becomes a "material pope". Now this "theory" came out of the confusion of Paul VI approving a heresy in December 1965; it was thought that a true pope approved a heresy and became a heretic, therefore he was "materially pope" but not "formally"; he was physically in the place of the pope and people treated him as a pope, but he wasn't one. However, even admitting this proposition, then upon the next election of a pope, JP1, the conciliar heresies would have been publicly accepted by JP1, therefore he was presumed to have accepted them and was at least a material heretic incapable of being elected. However, then more information has come out that Roncalli was a pre-election heretic, thus was incapable of being elected pope in 1958. This should therefore exclude the sedeprivationist proposition, except they have also shifted with the sedevacantists to (I believe, in a sense) claiming that Roncalli was elected a "material pope". Now the sedevacantists had the same reasoning with Paul VI, except that they believed when he approved heresy he became non-pope at that point; it was only later that he was thought to be a pre-election heretic, and then that Roncalli was a pre-election heretic and so when elected started a schism (and so Paul VI's election would merely continue the schism and there would be no need to question if he was a heretic or not as he was carrying on a schismatic line). So overall sedeprivationism seems untenable, though maybe a little more research could put this to rest.
#6B terminalism
It was proposed by some sedes that Paul VI was the anti-Christ (I think a book was written that had this convincing thesis), since by instituting the novus ordo missal in 1969 he abolished the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Also given that no known pope was elected, there was a thought that the world was coming to an end. Hence some sedes hold that no pope will be elected but that the world will simply end before a pope can be elected. An interpretation circulated that since the cardinals are the exclusive electors of the pope, that therefore since they all defected and died that it was illegal and impossible to elect any more popes (Pius XII had strong legislation stating that no one could change the laws of election in a vacancy, which is an ecclesiastical law and not divine law - I believe the document is Apostolica Vacante Sedis). Some "terminalists" may also be "home aloner" sedevacantists who believe that most sede clergy are not lawful clergy, hence the Church is in a sense "dead" or "terminally ill". One such "terminalist" anathematized any who state that Peter shall have any more successors after the conciliar schism [5]. Paul VI was not the anti-Christ though as he did not perform miracles nor make it impossible to sell or buy without the mark of the Beast, and other things. Also I do not believe that we are incapable of electing a pope or that it can be proven that the world is ending. Hence I do not believe this view is tenable.
#6D/8 mysticalism
Some sedes are waiting for a miracle to elect a pope. However, there are a bunch of #8 "mysticalist conclavists" [6] already, so one wonders why they don't accept that God "miraculously" appointed one of these claimants as pope? Some think that the Blessed Virgin Mary Herself, or Sts. Peter and Paul, or someone else will personally crown the next pope as pope. This seems in the realm of possibly to consider or argue about, however this whole idea is based on the rejection of conclavism, or that Catholic sedevacantists are capable of electing a pope. I do not believe Catholics are incapable, hence I find no reason to wait for such a miracle. Also, if such a miracle occurred, it would need to be publicly verifiable, leading to the conversion of virtually the whole world. It seems unlikely such a thing would happen, but otherwise, if the miracle wasn't that public, how would Catholics ever be able to know who the pope is? We would have to basically trust in a mysticalist claimant like those who already exist. Other such difficulties exist with this position.
#6C/7 conclavism
Last we consider conclavism. I believe this is the correct resolution; it is the "normal" resolution of any vacancy of the Holy See (that Catholics who recognize that there is no pope, proceed to elect a pope). There are three categories of propositions: 1) (7A) A secret election ("Siri Theory") already happened and there is a "hidden pope", (7B) a conclave of Catholics elected a pope publicly, (6C) or the Church has no pope and should elect one eventually. Conclavism was the default remedy pursued to end the vacancy of the Holy See after 1958 by those like Fr. Saenz y Arriaga who tried to organize an "alternative" conclave of cardinals. There were talks within the SSPX or Thuc line of bishops about electing a pope, however no election materialized. Hence, since the clergy did not implement a conclavist election in a timely manner and/or were prevented from doing so, this led to the "sedevacantist opinionism" basically of not knowing how to resolve the vacancy or being skeptical about the ability to reason through and find any resolution.
Recently I considered the proposition that if Siri was elected pope secretly, this would send sedevacantists all in to material schism, which seemed odd that no one had thought of this that I could see online. Also, the idea of there having been a secret election somewhere suggests that no such conclavist election should take place, in case it just creates a schism with a true pope who has already been elected. However, since the Church is a visible society, I propose that if such a claimant had been secretly elected, yet the Church practically accepted a rival claimant and thus convalidated him, it seems possible that the rival claimant would have actually become pope. Other such resolutions are possible, that most of the Church could go in to material schism in unity under a material antipope, and then God might reveal the true pope in hiding. However, since we cannot know if a pope had been elected or not, it seems necessary to elect a pope, since if no secret pope was elected, then we elected a pope. Or as mentioned if this new election produced a material antipope, hopefully God would soon sort things out. But otherwise it seems safer to safeguarding unity, to elect a pope. Hence I reject the idea of a "secret election" as being of concern, as no further evidence has surfaced about any actual lineage of Siri having made cardinals and elected a successor, nor Ottaviani. And if such a conclavist election happened quietly as has been suggested with "Pope Krav" [7], the same kinds of principles apply (again, no information has come forward on if there was really such an election like this in the 70s; this claimant apparently really existed, but was a comedian; now that we have the internet, no further serious claim has been advanced). Therefore I believe 7A is practically eliminated.
6C (holding a new sedevacantist-conclavist election) is dependent upon rejecting previous conclavist elections like pope Michael's which can be verified to have happened, or other such claimants who held elections after him such as "Pius XIII" or "Linus II" [8]. The former election of a priest (I believe by laymen) has not had a new election after the death of their claimant, and the latter as far as we know has stepped down actually or practically (that election involved sede bishops in Rome). Pope Michael's election happened in 1990, whereas I think the two mentioned were 1994 and 1998. Hence we argue by the principle of "first in time, first in right" after what was said of the Western Schism, that pope Michael's election would hold over these other claimants whose elections were of a similar kind. We would ask why they wouldn't join a previously held conclave rather than hold their own. If, however, two elections had happened at the same time somehow without the two knowing of each other by some miscommunication, then the situation could have been resolved with a new election.
As has been stated elsewhere, there are tiers of electors. The cardinals should have elected a pope, and if they failed then the bishops in a general imperfect council, and if they didn't elect then the clergy of Rome, and finally the Universal Church may elect if the Roman clergy do not elect. Now the first three tiers of election did not happen. The last remaining Pius XII cardinals died, and I believe all the bishops with ordinary jurisdiction either died or joined the conciliar schism, hence neither of the first two tiers were possible. Also there were no known clergy of Rome who didn't defect to the conciliar church (as far as I know), hence that tier also became impossible. This leaves us with the necessity of an election by any Catholic left over. Therefore pope Michael researched and sent a copy of his book "Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century?" to all the chapels listed on Radko Janskey's list of traditional chapels (equivalent to a today's Traditio.com). While many of these chapels and its people were not legally Catholic, so long as a Catholic was elected and accepted by eligible sedevacantists (of who there were probably very few), such an election would have been ok. Hence only a few assembled to elect pope Michael. Therefore I conclude pope Michael is pope as I don't know how otherwise a "better" conclave is to be organized. If somehow pope Michael's election was proved invalid by some principle, then what would have to happen is basically a repeat of his election done with more people. Since numbers don't determine validity, again I conclude that this is unnecessary, with the exception of if some unknown disqualification is found.
Hence my particular problem with #6C of sedes advocating a new election is that it is basically going to be a repeat of pope Michael's election, so instead we ought to just accept the small pope Michael election. Waiting for bishops or clergy of Rome to elect, ends in practical terminalism or actual terminalism if one believes the clergy of Rome to be the lowest necessary tier of electors and that they have all joined conciliarism or died out. And if sede bishops or sede clergy who live in Rome elect, but they obtained orders technically illicitly along Lefebvre or Thuc lines, this isn't the same kind of general imperfect council or election by clergy of Rome who possess ordinary jurisdiction (which I believe is implied in these tiers of electors), but rather such lines are vagrant clergy who have offered sacraments under "supplied jurisdiction". Hence waiting for their election is again functionally equivalent to an election like pope Michael's.
Bp. Sanborn offers three arguments against conclavism in "Explanation of the Thesis" [8]:
I. First, who would be legally designated to vote? How would they be legally designated to vote?
II. Second, what principle would oblige Catholics to recognize the winner of such an election as the legitimate successor of St. Peter? Conclavism is simply a fancy name for mob rule, where the ones that shout the loudest carry the rest of the mob. The Catholic Church is not a mob, but a divinely constituted society with rules and legality .
III. Third, and most importantly , one cannot make the jump from the natural right of men of choosing for themselves heads of government to their right to vote for a pope. The Church is not a natural institution, as civil society is. There is no inherent natural right in the members of the Church to choose the Roman Pontiff. The choice of Roman Pontiff was originally made by Christ Himself in St. Peter, and the mode of choice thereafter was regulated by law .
I believe these have simple answers. #I we stated the various tiers of electors; if there had been interest in the pope Michael election, there could have been a delegate elector for each group and then an election held with all the delegates. Bp. Sanborn had written in "The Dissent of Faith" about the principle of convalidation, that any such eligible male Catholic would become pope if elected and accepted with practical unanimity by Catholics. This is manageable when legally the only Catholics are sedevacantists; Bp. Sanborn's sedeprivationist view however holds that all conciliarists are legally Catholic, which would make convalidation much more difficult. In any event, it certainly has been proposed who the electors are, I would have to see arguments against why the Universal Church cannot elect, and so on.
#II, the principle of there being no pope and the necessity of electing a pope. An acceptance by practical unanimity would especially convalidate the election and therefore create a binding election. The "mob" can convalidate, and the universal Church "mob" can elect.
#III the election of the universal Church conforms to the divine law of the necessity of having perpetual successors. This seems to be a denial of Journet and Billot's teaching that the universal Church may elect when the electors are unknown, and also of the elections of the early Church which followed no set method.
Hence I do not believe these reasons stand, however they are among the few arguments I see in the "sedevacantist spectrum" against conclavism. Another noted that if pope Michael's election had more people at it, then things would be different. However, why not acquire more people to accept the election now, and why didn't more drum up an interest in the election back then.
I conclude then that #7B the publicly known election of pope Michael is the correct position; yet if this election was not valid (by some reason unknown to me currently) then that #6C would be correct, that sedevacantists must seek a new election. I believe these are the only reasonable propositions and that whatever discussions occur among sedevacantists and conclavists, it is about working out #7B or #6C.
Thank you for reading and I urge any charitable insights you may have to contribute.
Citations:
1. www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf
2. mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf
3. MHFM collection on Angelo Roncalli: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/13_JohnXXIII.pdf
4. sedeprivationism.tumblr.com
5. Not the correct anathema, but the site I saw it on: catholicendtimetruths.com/second-coming-anathema/24/08/2014
6. Scroll to see list of claimants: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclavism
7. Ibid
8. Ibid (see other claimants on page if you wish)
9. Ibid Citation #2, p.8
Appendix Note:
Bp. Sanborn's "Explanation of the Thesis" is a bit of this kind of analysis of proposed Sedevacantist Resolutions as applied to the position he took, sedeprivationism against sedevacantism/mysticalism/conclavism. This could be perceived as an analogous such analysis yet in favor of conclavism vs. sedeprivationism/sedevacantism/mysticalism/terminalism/opinionism/etc. This is also a draft, there is probably more to add, like Bp. Sanborn in the aforementioned writing also offers reasoning against the mysticalist position which I would add to that section in a future writing of this.