Contending For The Faith---Part 36

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Recovering From The Truth

One of my readers brought to my attention an anti-Traditionalist website called Trad Recovery. It is run by and for disaffected Traditionalists who have apostatized to the Vatican II sect. It describes itself as follows:

Trad Recovery was established in February of 2023 to provide resources and community for individuals who are leaving traditionalist environments or ideologies and coming into full communion with the Catholic Church. By "traditionalism," we refer to the harmful or negative elements of a movement that is often motivated by desire for reverence, beauty, and devotion in our faith. While we support certain elements of the movement (including the Latin Mass according to the Missal of 1962, which many of our site members still attend), we at Trad Recovery are here to support those who want to remain orthodox and faithful in their Catholicism while recognizing that disobedience and schism are not compatible with being truly traditional. (See https://www.tradrecovery.com/about-4).

The website (hereinafter "TR") lumps sedevacantists with R&R under the term "Traditionalist." The site contains mostly (1) testimonials of priests who left the SSPX (but NOT to join the V2 sect), (2) a blog with bad theology, and (3) resources from the usual V2 apologists like Siscoe and Salza. 

Under the "resources" section, there is a 323 page prolix monograph entitled "Contra Sedevacantism:

A Definitive Refutation of Sedevacantism."

The first chapter has the ambitious (and false) title "Sedevacantism is Heretical." I must admit, at first blush it does seem impressive. The anonymous author(s) use citations from approved pre-Vatican II theologians. It is way above anything written by a Feeneyite, yet it nevertheless does a masterful job of proving nothing. 

Luckily, even though I have no time for a 323 post rebuttal, such isn't necessary. I have written on this before, in different forms. My next "Contending For The Faith" post in March will expose the false theology of Vatican II which TR tries to defend. First, I will show why sedevacantism is not heresy, and how TR gets it all wrong.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

The monograph is basically a rehashing of John Sala's arguments. The resurrected Salza arguments boil down to sedevacantism being heretical because we have no bishops (at least none of whom we know) possessing Ordinary Jurisdiction, which the approved pre-Vatican II theologians seem to tell us is necessary for Apostolicity; one of the Four Marks of the Church. TR claims this "refutes" sedevacantism. Then there is the nonsense regarding formal declarations against a pope and he remains in office until/unless such takes place. No one needs to even try a direct refutation.

When a Vatican II sect apologist says, "How do you explain (such and such) if sedevacantsim is true?" do not attempt an answer. The Great Apostasy is a unique time and it makes sense if we don't have all the answers at our fingertips. If Bergoglio and his sect are the One True Church, as V2 sect apologists contend (and we know very well what things must be like with the Church in normal conditions), the question must be asked of the sect's apologist, "If Bergoglio is pope and Vatican II is a legitimate Council of the Church, then how do you explain the almost word for word contradictions between pre- and post-V2 teachings?" 

 Everyone recognizes that there are serious differences with what purports to be the Roman Catholic Church today and how She existed prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). What was always believed and taught was now outright contradicted. The Mass and sacraments were substantially altered. It is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible and will exist until the end of time. This presented a big problem for Catholics worldwide. It seemed like there was a new religion operating inside formerly Catholic churches. The clergy tried telling the people that only outward appearances changed, but the "substance" of the faith, morals, Mass, and sacraments remained. 

This simply was not the case. The teaching of the Church regarding such topics as ecclesiology, religious liberty, and collegiality was completely different. The "Mass" was now identical to the invalid bread and wine "Lord's Supper" at the local  Lutheran church, and it introduced practices that had been condemned pre-Vatican II. Either the Church had been wrong from its founding by Our Lord Jesus Christ until Vatican II (in which case the Church was never founded by Christ and is a lie), or the Church was wrong after Vatican II (however, the dogma of Indefectibility teaches that the Church cannot teach error or give evil and She will last until the end of the world). The answer is to be found in the traditional teaching of the approved theologians and canonists: that it is possible for the pope, as a private theologian, to publicly profess heresy as a private theologian and fall from the pontificate by Divine Law. It is also taught that a heretic cannot obtain the papacy. 

These very real theological possibilities are referred to as sedevacantism (meaning "the seat/See of St. Peter is vacant"). Sedevacantism, broadly speaking, is the position that there is currently no pope, and the man Jorge Bergoglio, commonly accepted and called the pope, is in fact a false pope, with no known real pope at present. More specifically, it is the position that the men considered successors to Pope Pius XII are not legitimate successors, and the last known pope was Pius XII. (TR states sedes consider Roncalli the last true pope, but I know of not a single Traditionalist who still holds this view. It must be an extreme minority, if any do still exist). 

The Church under Pope Pius XII had the Four Marks and was clearly the One True Church in continuity with all popes before going back to St. Peter. The problem began when Roncalli started to rehabilitate all the Modernist theologians censured under Pope Pius XII and called the Council to "update" the Church. Roncalli either never obtained to the papacy (in my opinion the more likely scenario) or lost his authority after the election by public profession of heresy as a private theologian. Only a false pope could have signed Pacem in Terris. 

First Things First: Can Bergoglio Be The Pope?

Canon 188 of the 1917 Code simply restates what the Church has always taught: that a heretic is barred by Divine Law from obtaining the papacy. The pre-Vatican II canonists affirm that it is not canon law, but rather God's Law that prevents a heretic such as Bergoglio from obtaining the office of pope in the first place.

Proof: According to canonist Coronata, "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)

According to Wernz-Vidal: "Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…" (Jus Canonicum 1:415; Emphasis mine).

Bergoglio was a heretic much prior to his alleged "election" in 2013.  According to the Anti-Deformation League: "Cardinal Bergoglio maintained a close relationship with the Jewish community in Argentina. He has celebrated various Jewish holidays with the Argentinian Jewish community, including Chanukah where he lit a candle on the menorah, attended a Buenos Aires synagogue for Slichot, a pre-Rosh Hashana service, the Jewish New Year, as well as a commemoration of Kristallnacht, the wave of violent Nazi attacks against Jews before World War II."

 (See adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-congratulates-new-pope-francis; Emphasis mine).

"Cardinal" Bergoglio also participated in an ecumenical service wherein a Protestant minister "laid hands on him" as a religious action: "...then-Cardinal Bergoglio—metropolitan archbishop of Buenos Aires, primate of the Catholic Church in Argentina, and president of the Argentinian Bishops’ Conference—is kneeling, head bowed, between Father Raniero Cantalamessa and Catholic Charismatic leader Matteo Calisi, with Evangelical Pastor Carlos Mraida extending his hand toward the cardinal’s head, as the people invoke the Holy Spirit over him." 

(See catholicworldreport.com/2014/09/05/francis-ecumenism-and-the-common-witness-to-christ/; Emphasis mine).

Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (See theologian Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.)

Hence, Bergoglio could never have attained the papacy in the first place. Yet, just as a cause can be known by its effects, the Argentinian apostate continues to deny dogma as the "pope."

Jorge Bergoglio denies many dogmas, but I will focus on two: (a) There is only One True Church, and (b) that One True Church is absolutely necessary for salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus--Outside The Church There Is No Salvation). Pope Eugene IV, in the Apostolic Constitution Cantate Domino, teaches ex cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms-deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (See Denzinger #714; Emphasis mine)

Pope Innocent III in 1215: "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423; Emphasis mine)

Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctum (1302), infallibly declared, "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

The Nicene Creed: "...I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." (Emphasis mine).

That pretty much makes the case that the Magisterium has defined there is only ONE True Church, and outside of Her, no one is saved. Theologian Salaverri teaches: "From the documents of the Church it is clear that the necessity of belonging to the true Church is a dogma of faith." (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB [1955], pg. 446; Emphasis in original). Also, "Therefore it is an Article of divine and Catholic Faith to be professed by all that the Church necessarily and indefectibly is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." (Ibid, pg. 472; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine).

What has Bergoglio said? "Proselytism is solemn nonsense." Is it taken out of context? Not if you believe his good friend and co-author, Rabbi Abraham Skorka. (Together they published a book in 2010, On heaven and Earth while Bergoglio was "Cardinal") The leftist rabbi has said, "When he [Francis] speaks about evangelization, the idea is to evangelize Christians or Catholics," to reach "higher dimensions of faith" and a deepened commitment to social justice, Skorka said. "This is the idea of evangelization that Bergoglio is stressing — not to evangelize Jews. This he told me, on several opportunities." (See https://news.yahoo.com/rabbi-whose-good-friend-became-pope-060646630.html).

It is impossible to believe there is no salvation outside the Church and not try to convert everyone--including Jews--just as Our Lord commanded us to do in The Great Commission, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded thee. And surely I am with thee always, to the consummation of the world." (St. Matthew 28:19-20).

How about "I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being." (See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pope_Francis). The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. As Pope Pius XII taught: If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.

That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ."But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond. (See Mystici Corporis Christi, [1943], para. #13 and 14). God and His Church are inextricably united. God is indeed Catholic because that is His One True Church; His Mystical Body on Earth.

Furthermore, Bergoglio adheres to the teaching of Vatican II, which says, "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation..." (See Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #3; Emphasis mine). He believes in the false ecclesiology of Vatican II, wherein there is a "Church of Christ" distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, yet resides there in its "fullness" because it contains all of the "elements" of the Church of Christ. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good too, and leads to salvation. The New Ecclesiology is mutually exclusive of the True Ecclesiology pre-Vatican II.

Yet, the protests will come that Bergoglio "wasn't understood correctly," or he was "ambiguous" and it can be interpreted in an orthodox way.  For example, TR might say something along the lines that when Bergoglio said, "There is no Catholic God," what he really meant was that God created all people and not just Catholics, so in that sense "there is no Catholic God" because he is Creator of all regardless of religion. Of course, TR would have to ignore the context as well as the testimony of men like Skorka, to whom Bergoglio explained himself. Nevertheless, we need not bother delving into that difficulty.

The Church cannot (and does not) teach ambiguously in expressing theological truths. Any deliberate ambiguity must be interpreted against the orthodoxy of the one teaching ambiguously. Propositions that are ambiguous or admit of interpretations that are either orthodox or heterodox are deemed "heretical by defect." This is also the case with propositions that are true, but are calculated to omit pertinent truths or terms they ought to include. The following proposition of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia was condemned:

"After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances."

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned that proposition in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei because "it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of Faith...insofar as, through an unauthorized and suspicious omission of this kind, attention is drawn away both from an article of Faith and from a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresies, and tends, therefore, to result in its being forgotten as if it were merely a scholastic question."

What about pleas for the need of "warnings" (even as a "Cardinal") because he doesn't know something he said was heretical? The objection fails miserably:

According to theologian MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist." (See The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, CUA Press, [1932], pg. 35) Again, MacKenzie, "If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him." (Ibid, pg. 48; Emphasis mine). Now of course we have one final objection...

Who are you to judge the pope a heretic?

A famous Vatican II sect and R&R "boogeyman:" Sedevacantism "judges" the pope. As a procedural matter they are  correct, "The First See is judged by no one" as Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code clearly states. As explained by canonist Cappello, "Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. 'The First See is judged by no one.' (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.) However, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic loses his office by DIVINE LAW, and an apostate, like Bergoglio, cannot attain the office. This is the teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. (To name but a few, Van Noort, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, and Zubizarreta).  Sedevacantists depose no one, we just recognize a fact that has already happened..

First Summation:

1. Bergoglio was a heretic prior to his "election" as "pope." 

2. The heresy is apparent. 

3. Heresy is a Divine impediment to becoming pope.

Inescapable Conclusion: Bergoglio is not pope, and his clergy are not Catholic. 

Second Things Second: Sedevacantism and The Four Marks

Let the TR explain away how they have the Four Marks with a pope teaching heresy. As to sedevacantism, do WE possess the Four Marks as Traditionalists?

Is Apostolicity gone? No. Attempting to cite to any approved pre-Vatican II theologian to the contrary is useless because they were speaking about Apostolicity in normal times, not extraordinary times. There is a distinction which will be discussed next. 

 Approved theologians taught there could be an extended interregnum as we have today, and therefore it cannot be incompatible with maintaining the Four Marks.

According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

Therefore, the Church can remain for many years deprived of a pope, and the form of government remains "then in a different way." Moreover, there was a historical situation in the Church for 51 years called The Great Western Schism. From 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or possibly none) could have been the true pope. Which one, if any, was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit?  There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. In an age of much shorter life spans there could have been no bishops left with Ordinary jurisdiction, had none of the claimants been a true pope. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith.

As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine). So too, Traditionalists stand "willing to give that allegiance" when there is a true pope. 

The real nail in the coffin was delivered by theologian Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century. He wrote a book in 1882 (a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...

The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. 

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. 

We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree. (Emphasis mine).

Theologian Zubizarreta teaches:

When the Chair is vacant and the Church is temporarily deprived of its visible head, She retains the privileges of indefectibility and infallibility in both its passive infallibility of the body of the faithful in matters of belief  as well as the active infallibility of the Episcopal body in its teaching role, however without being able to infallibly define dogma not yet already declared. (Theologia Fundamentalis, 1:369, [1937]). 

The following points are made unmistakably clear:

• The Vatican Council's 1870 decree on the papacy has been misconstrued. The institution of the papacy is perpetual; there is no need nor guarantee of actual men to fill that See at every point in time.

• The Great Western Schism sets historical precedent for a de facto interregnum of 51 years, since no one knew which papal claimant was pope, and there was a real possibility that none of the claimants was Vicar of Christ. 

• The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church.  Therefore, all Four Marks, including Apostolicity and everything else the Church requires, continue of necessity, even if we may not know the exact answers in any given situation. The Magisterium would not allow theologians to teach a hypothetical situation as a real possibility, if that would somehow be incompatible with the dogma of Indefectibility and the promises of Christ. 

• It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law (such as a "heretical pope"--an oxymoron)

 Finally, Some Interesting Omissions from TR:

In their alleged "refutation" of sedevacantism, TR quotes frequently from theologian Elwood Sylvester Berry's work The Church of Christ [1955]. I wonder if  TR bothered to read it, or if  they even understand it. Here are some of Berry's teachings from the same treatise:

A False church with a false pope and false sacraments lead by Satan. On pgs. 65-66,  The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church. (Emphasis in original). A false church! Could Bergoglio and the Vatican II sect be paving the way for the end times?

Apostolicity as one of the Four Marks. On page 88: Apostolicity, as a mark, is thus restricted to succession, and that a material succession, since legitimacy is not an external quality easily recognized by all, whereas material succession, i.e., an unbroken line of pastors reaching back to the Apostles, can be known even by the unlearned as easily as the succession of civil rulers in the State. But since Apostolicity of material succession may, and probably does, exist in some schismatical churches, it constitutes a negative mark only.

So material succession determines Apostolicity as a Mark of the Church. Berry, on page 104, explains why schismatic sects like the Eastern Orthodox don't have a positive Apostolic mark, In no case do they [Eastern Schismatics] have legitimate succession; there is no transmission of jurisdiction because they have withdrawn from communion with Rome, the center and source of all jurisdiction. Sedevacantists have never withdrawn from communion with Rome! In order to prove we have, Contra must beg the question by asserting Bergoglio is a true pope, which is the very matter under dispute. 

A Doubtful Pope is No Pope. On page 229, A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case no one is bound to obey him, for it is an axiom of the law that a doubtful law begets no obligation---lex dubiat non obligat. But a superior no one is bound to obey is really no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. (Emphasis in original)

Can you say, "Roncalli"? 

Conclusion

Don't allow "Trad Recovery" to fool you. It is the Vatican II sect apologists that must explain how contradictory and ambiguous teachings can be taught as being in continuity with what the Church always held as true prior to Vatican II. Just because we may not know every answer about the functioning of the Church in a unique state doesn't mean She has not the Four Marks, as the Church Herself shows.  Likewise, not knowing exactly how or when we will get a real pope again doesn't make Bergoglio and his sect "pope and Church by default." I feel sorry for those who may have been hurt by thoughtless Traditionalist clerics or laity. Yet just because there was Judas doesn't mean we should abandon Christ.

I sincerely hope and pray these people come to their senses and recover the Truth which they tragically threw away.