Bishop Williamson denounces resistance to be sedevacantist - Part 2

+

JMJ

Now we know that Bishop Williamson already noted that Sedevacantists hold that the documents of V2 need to be tossed into the bin.

What other aspects did he note about the moderate or extreme Sedevacantists (note the full article can be found here)?

How about this:

(1) Pope John-Paul II is so far from being Catholic that one may seriously doubt whether he is Pope at all.

... and perhaps this ...

(2) The official Church and its leaders have gone so far in their false “renewal” that they may be ignored by Catholics.

... and of course this ...

(3) Present Church superiors have so betrayed the Faith that they can in no way be considered the real churchmen.

I admit that the 'resistance', while it has some core common beliefs, also has a flair for diversity and sedevacantism.



Here's a couple posts that I found on 'resistance' websites:

 Is Francis I a valid pope?
According to Catholic News Service, Pope Francis was “ordained” a priest on December 13, 1969.  Because the conciliar ordination rite was promulgated almost 18 months before that, it seems certain that Pope Francis received a conciliar ordination.  Since we hold that there is serious reason to doubt the validity of all conciliar ordinations, a person might wrongly argue that "Francis I cannot be pope, since he might not even be a valid priest".
This errant supposition stems from the failure to understand the difference between the pope’s juridical power and authority, in contrast to his power to confect the sacraments, through his priestly ordination and Episcopal consecration.  In fact, “any male Catholic who has come to the age of reason – even a layman … may be chosen to fill the office of Pope ….  it would be legally possible to elect even a married man. ….   It would be possible … that a person might be elected Pope who is not … a bishop ….  When a candidate is found to have the necessary number of votes and has manifested his willingness to accept the office, he is thereby pope.  He needs no ceremony of consecration to elevate him to the papacy. … He would become Pope as soon as he was lawfully chosen, and could then perform all the duties of the Papacy which pertain to jurisdiction; but he could not ordain or consecrate until he himself had been [validly] raised to the episcopate by other [valid] bishops.”  The Externals of the Catholic Church, by Fr. John F. Sullivan, Kennedy & Sons, 1917, pp. 6-8.
Thus, Pope Francis is the legitimate pope with full jurisdiction, even though his ordination to the priesthood, and consecration as a bishop, are inherently doubtful.

This 'acceptance' of Pope Francis as a legitimate Pope who isn't a priest/bishop a smoke screen for sedevacantism.  Because as noted by the same author:

It would be possible, though far from probable, that a person might be elected Pope who is not already a Bishop. He would become Pope as soon as he was lawfully chosen, and could then perform all the duties of the Papacy which pertain to jurisdiction; but he could not ordain or consecrate until he himself had been raised to the episcopate by other Bishops.

If the rite of ordination is invalid (read: contravenes indefectibility) how is a non-prelate Pope going to be elevated to the episcopate for other non-Bishops. The author is alleging that, in principle, there is doubt about all the Latin-Rite Bishops of the Church since they were practically all ordained after the cited changes.

What did Archbishop Lefebvre think?

The ‘matter’ of the sacrament has been preserved in the laying on of hands which takes place next, and likewise the ‘form,’ namely, the words of ordination” (ibid., p.51). 

What are the three components of a sacrament?  Matter, Form and Intention.  If Form is present, then the Intention is assumed.

Obviously, this is just another deviation from the path of Archbishop Lefebvre - which unsurpisingly is sedevacantism.

Casting about on the 'resistance' internet we find the following:

Although I recognize that The Office of Pope is by election, and I recognize his ‘Authority’, Pope Francis deserves my disobedience in view of his Apostasy from The Holy Roman Catholic Faith of Tradition = TRUTH. He is destroying what is left after the rubber stamp of Vatican II set up by infiltrators: freemasons and other demonic groups.

Again we have an opinion that Bishop Williamson, at least before he changed, would have classified as 'sedevacantist' (see quote #2 and #3).

So who has changed?  The SSPX - - - I don't think so!

P^3