No Pope Since 1958? The Question Sedevacantists Can't Answer
Christ is King Action Ministries / Sensus Fidelium | 30 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHB9RPq8Meg
0:51 I'm not a Sedevacantist, technically.
I'm a Conclavist, holding that a valid emergency "conclave" was held in 1990, and again a valid more conclave like election was held in 2023, after the heirs of Pope Michael I had given Sede bishops a chance for a Sede conclave, and they didn't.
12:58 The problem with this "mechanism" parallel is, parallel mechanisms with different material is not in fact equivalence.
Also, what you would call "the Protestant mechanism" would in fact be one Catholic reply in face of Usurpation, like that of "bishops" (usually, not always, invalid even in the first generation, always in the second) in Protestant countries denying Scriptural truth like Papacy, indissolibulity of marriage, Church not being an annex of the state, for England also the Eucharist.
The "Protestant mechanism" is faulty, not because of its diagram, but for what it was objectively against, i e the true Church.
The Council of Trent had the humility to give Protestants an extra reality check on top of "universal peaceful acceptance" of its Pope and Mass, namely tradition. The unanimity of the Church Fathers.
[Yep, above disappeared too]
[One of the things I did yesterday, before this began, I've verified it happens both in a cyber and in a library, so it's youtube, is answering someone on the Apostolic Succession, as bishops of Papal claimants. Michael I and Michael II, Duarte Costa line. Palmarians (from Gregorio XVII to Peter III) Thuc line. Pius XIII from a priest he authorised to use the (as he supposed) inherent ability of priests to ordain and consecrate. Linus II, no idea. These claimants are not solidaric, they are mutually exclusive. If Palmar was the papacy, Michael I couldn't be. If Palmar or Michael I was papacy, Linus II couldn't be. If Palmar, Michael I, or Linus II was papacy, Pius XIII couldn't be. Linus II has stepped back, Pius XIII has died with no succession, remain only Palmar and Michael II.
It can be noted that Michael II was crowned in the Philippines, his native country, and resides part time in Germany too, or did so. His predecessor resided habitually in Topeka, Kansas.
The vacancy was for 32 years, and the electors were recognised based on St. Robert Bellarmine and on First Millennium as being able to devolve from college of cardinals, in our interpretation even to lay electors.
The "who judged the pope" question is in one sense the same for judging a man not to be pope and judging a pope not to be obeyed. I think "Christ the King" is SSPX. They do that. In another sense, it's they who alone are "judging the pope" since they judge a man they hold to actually be Pope. If consensus within those accepting Vatican II is sufficient to hold Francis or Leo as Popes, how is it not sufficient to hold Nostra Aetate as binding? If opposition like SSPX is sufficient to allow the Church not to have accepted it by unanimity, then opposition like that of Sedes is sufficient for the Church not to have accepted John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis or Leo XIV as Popes, nor Paul VI, nor John XXIII.
"By the Church" as per St. Robert, note that the Church has been basically 120, Acts 1:15. If an otherwise accepted Pope is a heretic and cannot be accepted, the ones who refuse to accept him are the Church, or part of them are, if they do the rest of the right things, like see if there is any other Pope, and if not, elect one.
We hold that Bellarmine and Cajetan disagree and Bellarmine is right, Cajetan wrong. I knew about their difference when I was an SSPX-er. It was in "Wie müssen wir zum Pabst stehen" by Fr. Paul Natterer.
Obviously, just as there are not millions of Catholics each deciding for himself and by himself that the Novus Ordo is inadvisable, but one Lefebvre who offering the Traditional Latin Mass who alerts them, so also there are not millions of Catholics deciding each for and himself that Paul VI wasn't and John Paul II wasn't Pope and that a real one was elected in 1990, but a minority alerting or trying to alert them.
Can any Catholic decide a universally recognised Pope is not Pope? Well, can any Catholic decide a universally recognised Council is not a Council?
If a Pope is seen as not being the Pope, the answer according to St. Robert can't be "what tribunal said so" because that's the position of Cajetan, not of St. Robert. (Saint Cajetan is a different guy!)
The answer needs to be, "here is the fact, how can we get a tribunal for it?" and electing a Pope is one answer.
Luther's faulty ecclesiology is not "private judgement" but "ecclesial fallibility" ... one which SSPX shares by claiming John Paul II was gravely wrong and still actual Pope of the actual Church. "Private judgement" is a catchword in the debate, not a defined error of Protestantism.
Formal pertinacious heresy is not needed. It is possible that Nestorius agreed with Chalcedon, and used the wrong words. However, this does not change the fact that he stopped being Patriarch with actual jurisdiction the moment he began to "preach heresy" ... the latter was said in 430, by Pope St. Coelestine I. Since formal pertinacious heresy is not needed, given preaching of error (even material heresies not yet defined as such) to lose office, the establishing of formal pertinacious heresy by a competent tribunal isn't needed either. However, loss of office is needed before you treat a Pope as having lost office. The thing a Pope is head of is not a fallible state, nor a family with sins, a bad president with wicked legislation or a drunkard father cannot be a proper comparison. But if it were, is SSPX ever establishing "drunkenness" with the glibness as when Muslims think of drunkards?
Manifest means it doesn't need to "be established". It's manifest that John Paul II held a prayer meeting in Assisi. If Catholicism either says "we need to presume a Pagan in mortal sin" or even just "we cannot assume a specific Pagan exceptionally in grace" this manifests heresy. But the facts were in fact established by a Pope ... provided Michael I was validly elected.
Manifest heresy triggers a right to disregard previously presumed office, no jurisdiction required, the faithful in Constantinople didn't have jurisdiction over Nestorius, they just saw he was not a spokesman of orthodoxy.
St. Pius X could abrogate Paul IV as to discipline, but the changed discipline doesn't mean that Cum ex apostolatus becomes heretical. It's principles can be valid from divine law in matters not foreseen by the prudence of St. Pius X.
If universal peaceful acceptance there is, it involves not just John Paul II being Pope, but Assisi 1986 being a good thing, since very few Catholics contest it, and a minority even before his "election" denied he was being elected Pope. The proposition about universal acceptance making non-holding of office conflicts with Cum ex apostolatus:
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;]
The final challenge should be met with a video:
CORONATION OF POPE MICHAEL II
Pope Michael II | 12 Nov. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMRj2QJAXcg
SSPX relies on faithful to accept video evidence from Écône that some people were recently consecrated bishops. Look at video evidence from Bulacan, Philippines. In the US, you arguably would need to consult bishop Frederick A. Clary.]
