SHARBEL FERRO writes:

I recently read a part of your website (here and here) in which you explain that you conclude that Francis I is not the pope of the Catholic Church, and that the Chair is empty. I too have this view, and I am convinced of it in the deepest fibres of my heart. I have held this view for about three years now.

Can I share with you how I came to the sedevacantist position? I think it my be of interest to you, and supportive, because from some of the things you say on your website, it has plenty in common with my own journey. (Actually, I think almost all sedevacantists have a very similar journey to reach their conclusion.)

It is a simple journey really. We read more and more about the Catholic faith as it has been infallibly taught over the centuries, and we start to notice more and more, that the men claiming to be pope since 1958 do and say things contrary to defined dogma. We pray about it, ask God – beg God for help and guidance, and we go through periods where we are tossed about on the seas of confusion, worry, fear and sorrow. We are afraid that we will sin against God by rejecting the lawful authorities of his Church. We fear lest we cut ourselves off from the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ. But something urges us on all the same – something keeps us going in the same direction. It is, no doubt, our awareness that we are actually not going away from the Church, but coming closer to it. We are adhering to dogma, and it is they – the heretics and modernists — who have cut themselves off, not us.

Then when we learn more, we see that out position is not just likely, or closer to the truth, but the only conclusion a Catholic can make in these times, if he just follows infallible truths.

If you believe Francis I is an Antipope usurper, you must believe that about the five before him, going back to Angelo Roncalli, aka John XXIII.

I firmly believe that we are in the end times, and we are dealing with here is the end times chastisement of the Church by Almighty God, because of His outraged Justice, because of the horrific ingratitude, sins, crimes, greed and neglect of Catholics and the world in general.

This chastisement then takes the form of a sect, namely the Vatican II sect or whore of Babylon of Revelation, superimposed over the top of the Church. Just as the Novus Ordo altar – the abomination of desolation – stands over and in front of the true altar in a church, so also the whole Vatican II sect is built over the Catholic Church, using its offices, titles, buildings, etc. to teach the Masonic doctrine of universal brotherhood and universal salvation, with all religions more or less equal.

The Virgin Mary said at La Salette: “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist. … The Church will be in eclipse.”

I mentioned the five men claiming to be pope before Francis, and how we must view them as non-Catholic usurpers also. This is because all of them promote a new and false kind of ecumenism. Ecumenism is spiritual harlotry. Harlotry is the sin of the whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation. The Vatican II sect has not changed everything or taught error in every area of Catholic doctrine. Its heresies are mostly limited to harlotry/ecumenism. This allows it to keep the appearance of Catholicism. Remember, that if a person departs from even one article of faith, they fall out of the Church and become guilty of denying the whole.  It has been taught infallibly that one must believe with Divine and Catholic faith all that has been revealed and taught.

Many of us who came to this inevitable conclusion have done considerable study so that we could be sure that we were believing rightly and in accordance with Catholic teaching, and so that we know how to conduct ourselves – i.e. in regards to the sacraments, and so that we can help others to learn the truth about the great apostasy.

[…]

I would add here, that there are innumerable Catholic prophecies about this time we are living in. You probably know about this. Did you know that more than one of the prophesies specifically mentions the second half of the twentieth century? Anne Catherine Emerich says this, and says that Lucifer, together with many devils, will be let out of hell at that time.

Lastly, I just wanted to say, that a Catholic living in this time must be prepared to have his heart pierced by a sword of sorrow. There is no other way. One must enter into the passion of Christ in a deep way, and be united to the sacred, loving hearts of Jesus and Mary, utterly broken and pierced by a sword of sorrow. One would move toward this anyway if one loved Our Lord, because of so much sin and so many lost souls, but the knowledge of what has happened to the Church – a supreme chastisement of Divine Justice and the worst persecution ever of the Church – this knowledge pushes one over the edge into a sea of sorrow. The reason for me saying this is that I know of one man who apostatized completely and I have a friend who moves in and out of total despair. It’s hard to be ostracized, lonely, etc. Many sede’s become harsh or bitter.

If you haven’t already found it, I urge you to read: “We are warned: The prophecies of Marie Julie Jahenny.”

In it, are the most heartbreaking words of Jesus and Mary about the truth of this epoch, but also there are many encouraging and hopeful revelations about the coming restoration of all things. I urge you to read it all, it is pure gold and most sweet and loving.

I keep you in my prayers, please pray for me also.

— Comments —

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Your letter from Sharbel Ferro hits on something important, which you’ve hinted upon elsewhere.  It would seem that the really important dividing line within the Church nowadays is between those on one side who, looking about at the devastation wrought these last fifty odd years, react with heartbreak and horror, and those who instead dutifully take up the call to a mawkish and insensible “joy.”

Now, real joy is closely akin to sorrow, and anyone who has experienced the genuine article can attest to how similar the two are even as emotional states.  It is a testimony to the pathetic crudity of the post-Vatican II Church’s concept of religion that we constantly are told that sorrow at the state of the world, or especially at the state of the Church, is “un-Christian.”  When Pope Francis ludicrously exclaims that things in the Church have hardly ever been better, amidst world-historical levels of crisis and decay, we know that there is something diabolical at work.  Sorrow is the only sane response of the Catholic person to the scene unfolding daily, in which the ancient Faith of our Fathers is literally vanishing before our very eyes.

One need only listen to Catholic radio to get a sense of the absurdity.  On XM there are a number of Catholic programs one can listen to, and to describe the content as “happy talk” fails to do justice to the offensive vapidity of the content there.  The unbridled exuberance and intolerable school-girl-level giggling and guffawing that dominates “conversation” on these shows ought to make any Catholic cringe in embarrassment.  The behavior of the priests on these programs is nothing less than a humiliation–they have transparently been charged to act like air-headed comedians, having MORE! FUN! THAN! ANYBODY! EVER!  Do they think people are this stupid?  Is anyone actually sold on Christianity by this nonsense?  Obviously not, just as it is the thinnest of excuses that the Latin and Greek of the traditional Roman Rite of the Mass, and the heraldic tone of the prayers themselves, were somehow too “inaccessible” for the poor dolts in the pews.

Of course, saving souls and winning converts is not the point of these shows, as it is not the point of the post-Vatican II Church.  The point is to make the visible Church on earth as base and ridiculous as possible because, like all the other institutions that constitute Western Civilization, the Church is guilty, guilty, guilty.  Guilty of triumphalism.  Guilty of believing itself right where others are wrong.  Guilty of crimes against the freedom of the individual will.  And the Church must atone by tearing down Her high altars, stripping Her priests of the dignity that rightly attaches to their station, and by dethroning Christ from His dominion over all the nations and elevating Man in his place (your post on the UN tells something of the story there).

It is absolutely vital to the whole project that as this is being done everyone, especially those calling themselves “conservatives,” partake of mindless celebratory enthusiasm for the future of the Church.  Anything less is treated as a kind of deviationism and a betrayal of the People’s revolt.

The warning I would issue is the always-necessary (though tiresome) one against despair, which comes not from God.  Real joy is more difficult to sustain than real sorrow, and it is possible to feed the latter until it becomes a sort of fatalism, or morbidity.  This is bad for a man’s soul, and bad for the Church.  I trust nothing more needs saying in that regard.

Laura writes:

Here are photos that capture that false joy, which is abject denial of the faith. The Tickle-Me-Till-I-Pop cardinal, Timothy Dolan, meets with the Marxist, pro-abortion, anti-marriage mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio.

Mr. McLaughlin writes:

I am not sure I have ever seen a photograph of Dolan, taken in public, in which he was not absolutely bursting at the seams with hearty laughter, like the Santa Claus at the local mall.  He seems especially to relish his vocation whenever it puts him in a position to slap shoulders with flamboyantly evil men.

Tom writes:

 A couple of pertinent quotes from Mary’s words at La Salette of the End Times…

“The true faith to the Lord having been forgotten, each individual will want to be on his own and be superior to people of same identity..they will abolish civil rights as well as ecclesiastical, all order and all justice would be trampled underfoot and only homicides, hate, jealousy, lies and dissension would be seen without love for country or family.”

and…

 “The Society of men is on the eve of the most terrible scourges and of gravest events. Mankind must expect to be ruled with an iron rod…” Intrusive legislation and PC?

Laura writes:

In an article on Our Lady of La Salette, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira wrote:

You all know members of the High and Low Clergy as well as Catholic lay people who are very happy, who think that everything is going very well. If you tell these people that a chastisement is being prepared for mankind, they respond that it is absurd. They affirm that Religion is experiencing an extraordinary progress.

Next to such persons, we look gloomy and sad. We play the role of the pessimistic hypochondriacs who do not fit into the joyful, carefree atmosphere of our days, which always disseminates an optimistic and positive opinion about everything.

Kimberly writes:

I have only once heard of Our Lady of La Salette. I have heard prophecies about the three days of darkness and I have even gotten a whole box of candles blessed and stored because of it, but I thought it came from Our Lady of Fatima for some reason. Either way, I don’t understand where this orders a division from the Church. I don’t understand what good it will do. It seems that if our ship is rocking wildly on account of wicked priests and bishops and popes, our duty is to sink with the ship. Not that we should have a defeatist attitude or pretend the ship is not in danger; we should be ready to die for our love for Christ, if that’s what He calls for, and ready to fight to rescue what we can of the beautiful tradition and faith that once was. We can do this with or without the Pope, so why risk without?

It seems that these are members of the Catholic church that are being overlooked in this discussion. There are those in the Church that do not consider themselves sedevacantist and yet are not at all oblivious to the serious evils at work. For some reason my heart loses an enormous amount of peace when I consider declaring myself a sedevacantist, and it’s not because I fear being alone or frowned upon by men. It’s because I fear that I would offend God, Jesus, and Mary.

These words from Jesus and Mary in the prophecies of Marie Julie Jahenny do not strike me as authentic. I could be wrong, but when I have read other prophecies, namely in the diary of St. Maria Faustina, Jesus and Mary do not sound as if they are hopeless and can do nothing. Jesus constantly assures St. Faustina that even if priests tell her to contradict what He Himself tells her, she is to obey the priest, because her obedience and the suffering it causes her are far more valuable to Him than any other action she could take. He assures her that His will is going to be done, regardless of any human interference.

I can hardly take this stance that Jesus and Mary are desperate and helpless because we have evil men running the Church. I can accept that their evil is certainly going to bring about serious consequences for which we must be prepared in spirit and even in body. And I can accept that this may well happen in my lifetime, when my children are young and even nursing. I do not feel any bitterness, as these other readers are warning you about. I feel blessed to know the truth, and certain that the truth is where God left it and promised it would stay. If we all die for it, so be it. I feel sorry for the priests.

Laura writes:

For some reason my heart loses an enormous amount of peace when I consider declaring myself a sedevacantist, and it’s not because I fear being alone or frowned upon by men. It’s because I fear that I would offend God, Jesus, and Mary.

Yes, that is the main issue. I am not advocating any kind of “division from the Church.” The sedevacantist does not challenge the infallible teachings of the Church or the principle of papal authority. He honors and upholds the Church hierarchy.

I do not know the full history of Marie Julie Jahenny and whether her prophecies have been recognized by the Church.

Mr. Ferro writes:

Marie Julie Jahenny was approved of by her bishop, the bishop of Nantes, who wrote in a letter to a doctor who examined Marie Julie:

“The reports that I receive daily on Marie-Julie show me more and more the action of God on this soul. He grants her graces of an obvious supernatural order. At the same time she grows in virtue and noble sentiments. … what she manifests is supernatural… .”

(Letter from the Bishop of Nantes to *Dr. Imbert-Gourbeyre, 6 June 1875)

The Bishop’s support and approval of Marie Julie continued permanently.

This webpage has a link (about two thirds the way down) to a .pdf file about Marie Julie Jahenny and the revelations granted to her. It contains much information about Marie Julie herself, including her mystical gifts, prophecies and sufferings.

This link has an e-book about the revelations to Marie Julie, and contains much more of the actual revelations that the first link.

Catherine H. writes:

I have been distressed by your sedevacantist position ever since you first declared your mindset last December. Although I deeply empathize with your sorrow over the current state of affairs, I cannot agree with your stance on the legitimacy of Pope Francis. There is a point regarding this issue that I have not yet seen brought forward, and that is the difference between material and formal heresy. From the reading I have done, it seems to me that for a pope to lose his office by falling into heresy, it must be formal heresy, which means that a pope must consciously persist in an heretical opinion that opposes the Church’s own clearly defined dogma. Although Pope Francis has made many erroneous statements and often acted foolishly in public matters, I am not aware of any deliberate and unambiguous declarations of formal heresy on his part. Short of such explicit actions, to say he has vacated his office by falling into heresy becomes a judgment of his intentions; his intentions may be guessed through his public actions but not determined with certainty.

As an example, it is easy for the average Catholic to fall briefly into heterodoxy when speaking of the Trinity, a truth and a mystery beyond the full comprehension of the human mind, merely by not taking care to define his terms carefully. That Catholic’s statement may be intrinsically heretical, but it does not thereby render the Catholic himself a heretic: the intention to set himself in opposition to the teaching of the Church would be the essential aspect missing in his case. Can you point to an example of Pope Francis declaring such an intention?

Without the safeguard of an outward and public act of formal heresy, there is nothing to prevent some popes from being judged heretical by any concerned Catholic–a situation that sounds perilously close to the Protestant embrace of the supremacy of individual judgement.

 Laura writes:

First, it’s important to clarify that the sedevacantist position is that the entire Vatican II Church is a false Church superimposed upon the Catholic Church. The single most decisive evidence of this is the New Mass, which is based on an erroneous doctrine of the Eucharist. You are probably familiar with the Ottaviani Intervention, in which Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Antonio Cardinal Bacci and a group of Roman theologians wrote to Paul VI in 1969, the same year the New Mass was introduced, and objected to the heresies in it, but for those who are unfamiliar with it, here it is. A concise summary of the key points can be found here. Vatican II also maintains that the Christian Church subsists in the Catholic Church, but is not exclusively identified with it, another key denial of Catholic teaching.

In answer to your question about Francis, material heresy is the holding of erroneous opinions through ignorance or the lack of any awareness of the truth. This cannot be the case with Francis’s repeated and blatant heresies for he is highly educated in theology and was elected to the Chair based on his assumed knowledge of the Church. He should have far more acquaintance with basic doctrine than you and I, and yet he denies key dogmas that you and I take for granted. Francis is obviously under the heavy influence of modernist theologians, but he has had ample opportunity to acquaint himself with the basic and unchanging beliefs of the Church.

In his apostolic exhortation — known here as his apostatical exhortation — Francis says that God’s covenant with the Jews has not ended.  “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked.” (§247) Previous popes and Councils of the Church have infallibly ruled otherwise. Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo wrote:

“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. “

A Catholic Bishop responds here to one of Francis’s statements regarding the Jewish covenant.

He has promoted the “ecumenism of the martyrs,” stating that Protestant martyrs have died for the same faith. Francis recently told Muslim refugees to practice their faith with devotion because it will help them in life, thus denying that Islam is a false creed.

Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.

(Address to Refugees at Sacred Heart Basilica, Rome, Jan. 19, 2014)

Francis has imputed blasphemous thoughts to the Mother of God and has said that Mary is flawed, clearly implying that she is morally flawed, at the same time denying that the Church is indefectible.

“Do we love the Church as we love our mothers, also taking into account her defects? All mothers have defects, we all have defects, but when we speak of our mother’s defects we gloss over them, we love her as she is. And the Church also has her defects: but we love her just as a mother. Do we help her to be more beautiful, more authentic, more in harmony with the Lord?”

He has said that atheists can go to heaven without renouncing atheism. He has said that God’s judgement should not be feared. He has said numerous times that truth is not absolute. “No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it].” He has embraced utopianism, which is contrary to the Church’s eschatological teachings. He wrote in Evangelii Gaudium: “People live poised between each individual moment and the greater, brighter horizon of the utopian future as the final cause which draws us to itself.” (§ 222) In countless actions, he has denied the Papacy itself by criticizing and undermining its splendor. He has suggested that the Church’s view of marriage is wrong and has never altered the Vatican II redefinition of marriage, making procreation no longer its primary end, and the Vatican II Church’s denial of the indissolubility of marriage with easy annulments. He personally called a woman who was pregnant with the child of a married man (married to someone else) and warmly praised her.

Examples of Benedict XVI’s heresies can be found here and here. Examples of those of John Paul II can be found here. Ordinary Catholics are obliged to object. As Gregorius at Novus Ordo Watch wrote:

The Modernist Church has destroyed Catholic doctrine and is clearly a different institution from the Catholic Church of 1958. Everyone admits that the Church in Rome today is manifestly different from the Church of Pope Pius XII. Just as the great St. Pius X condemned the modernists severely, so must we. And just as the fact that only God knows their hearts did not prevent the saintly Pontiff from tearing off their masks and condemning not just their doctrines but them, so neither must we be silent in the face of the near-absolute devastation of Our Lord’s vineyard on the grounds that perhaps we’re committing a “rash judgment” if we should say that those who have so thoroughly devastated the field again and again are not in fact friends of the vine-grower but in fact his worst adversaries — duh! [Right: Pope St. Pius X condemned the Modernists as “the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church,” and after the death of Pius XII their descendants at (and after) Vatican II proved by their destructiveness that the sainted pontiff to be correct.]

Jewel A. writes:

A beautiful and moving post. As for martyrs dying for the Pinocchio Mass, perhaps there should at least be heads rolling. If anything, children should be taught to respect the sacred spaces. Jesus should not be reduced to becoming a cartoon figure. That is how the faith is so sadly often taught in Protestant churches. It was a repulsive thing to watch. Such foolishness. It borders, maybe even crosses the line into blasphemous.

Having said that, Pinocchio is a wonderful Christian allegory, at least the original unDisneyfied story. If you recall, Geppetto created Pinocchio, who in turned accused his father of gross crimes, and was jailed for them. Pinocchio, having banished his father, then rejects his own conscience, and murders ‘Jiminy Cricket’.  It’s all downhill from there for the wooden head. The original story should be taught in its own place, apart from the Mass. We’d all be much better from reading good Christian literature.

On a happier note, Harrisburg got a new bishop: Ronald Gainer. Reason to hope!

Feb. 13, 2014

Catherine H. writes:

Although I appreciate the clarification of sedevacantist views, I am going to focus on the issue of heretical popes, as I do not feel I have the time or energy to debate the entire sedevacantist platform.

As the daughter of a lawyer and the wife of another, I have long placed great importance on the specificity of words.  It seems appropriate, also, that we should be very exact when considering matters as grave as whether the Catholic Church is leaderless or not.  Therefore I must point out that Pope Benedict XIV says that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law have been abrogated, not their designation as God’s chosen people, which is what Francis seems to mean by “covenant.”  No Catholic should deny that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law cannot be practiced in replacement of the ceremonies of the New Law (i.e. the Mass) or treated as though they contain salvific effect—but there is no heterodoxy in holding that the Jews remain God’s chosen people, despite their perfidy.  These are two entirely different proposals which are not mutually exclusive, and not an example of formal heresy.

Likewise, none of your other examples contains Francis’s declaration of formal heresy either, reprehensible and modernist though they are.  Each of them falls under the example I used regarding the Holy Spirit: containing erroneous and anti-Catholic meaning in themselves, they nevertheless do not mean that Francis is willfully and consciously denying Catholic doctrine by saying them.  I abhor the Modernist spirit in which they were said as much as you do, but I cannot thereby state Francis’s intentions with absolute certainty—I can only infer.

Given that there is no law above the pope but Divine Law, and no higher court by which to judge him, the inference of neither one layperson nor many can ever be enough to declare him apostate.  Indeed, although it is theoretically possible for the pope to lose office through apostasy, such an event is almost impossible to imagine in practicality.  Even in the instance of an outward declaration of heresy, such as if Francis were to announce at a papal audience that he adheres without qualification to the teachings of Arius, there would still need to be some authoritative group of prelates (chosen by whom? and how?) that would interview him, examine his statements, and determine if there truly were cause to elect a new Pope.

You say Francis “should have far more acquaintance with basic doctrine” and that he cannot be a material heretic because he is educated and elected on the presumption that he is educated.  Although I agree that these circumstances should provide a safeguard against heresy, they cannot equate to a safeguard against inadvertent heresy.  Even the most highly educated, well-intentioned, and orthodox theologians can sometimes fall into error merely by not being specific enough in their language; if Francis is none of the above, how can we tell how much of his error is due to malice or just ignorance?  Once again, it seems to me that the sedevacantist position relies on inference of intentions, which simply is not enough by which to condemn.  As you put it, “ordinary Catholics are obliged to object.”  Object, yes, but not depose.

Although I may or may not allow myself to be drawn into debating sedevacantism at large, I have two questions to which I would be grateful to hear the sedevacantist response : first, if it is true that the Catholic Church has been “covered over,” by a false one since 1958, and has no true Pope, does this not mean she is no longer identified as “one,” as in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,” for how can the Church be One without a leader?  And if she is no longer One, have not Our Lord’s words that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against her” been proven false?  In what way has hell not triumphed if heretical errors have indeed overcome the visible head of the Church?  Second, how does the sedevacantist position deviate from Martian Luther’s, who similarly held that the true Church had gone underground by about the fourth century, due to the perceived influx of pagan rituals into Christian beliefs and practices?  Luther held that somehow the true Church had continued to exist through the centuries despite being leaderless and abused, and was only able to resurface in the early 16^th century through his own courageous efforts.  How does sedevacantism differ, in that it declares the Catholic Church to have been decapitated and forced into hiding through the influence of Modernism, and, I suppose, now awaits an impeccably orthodox leader in order to rise again?

I want to repeat that I share your concern and sorrow over the state of the Church and her hierarchy today, and that I respect your powers of intellect and profound cultural observations.  I am grateful that you take the time to consider my words and respond to them; please understand that I am motivated by spiritual concern for you on the path that you are taking, as well as by intellectual inquisitiveness.

 Laura writes:

Thank you for your concern.

You write:

No Catholic should deny that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law cannot be practiced in replacement of the ceremonies of the New Law (i.e. the Mass) or treated as though they contain salvific effect—but there is no heterodoxy in holding that the Jews remain God’s chosen people, despite their perfidy. These are two entirely different proposals which are not mutually exclusive, and not an example of formal heresy.

I don’t think you have thought out the implications of what you are saying and I understand that the “Pope” himself is teaching error in this regard so confusion is readily available, but this is a blasphemous statement. You are saying that the people who reject the Incarnation, who reject Christ as the Redeemer, and who reject what Christ himself called the “New Covenant,” are God’s Chosen People. Scripture is emphatic on this issue: 1 John 2:23: “No one who denies the Son has the Father.” If you are correct, why did the Jewish Apostles stop being Jews? Why did Paul no longer consider himself a Jew? Why did Paul and the disciples so strenuously attempt to convert the Jews? Why does the New Testament say over and over again that the Old Covenant has ended? Why has the Catholic Church always prayed for the conversion of the Jews if they are still God’s Chosen People? How could God view as the Chosen People those who persecuted Christians (and continue to persecute Christians) and incited the martyrdom of many thousands because of their hatred of what they considered to be the false Messiah? I’m not sure how you see Jews as obtaining salvation if their religious practices are void and yet they remain the Chosen People. Scripture is emphatic on this issue: 1 John 2:23: “No one who denies the Son has the Father?”

Let me give a few of the many statements from the New Testament (remember, it’s the New Testament because the Old has been superseded) regarding the New Covenant and the end of the Old Covenant.

“And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke. and gave it to his disciples, and said, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’ And taking a cup, he gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, ‘All of you drink of this; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins”‘ (Matthew 26:26-28).

“And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessing it, he broke and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’ And taking a cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it; and he said to them, ‘This is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many”‘ (Mark 14:22-24).

“And having taken bread, he gave thanks and broke, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In like manner he took also the cup after the supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you”‘ (Luke 22:19-20).

“For I myself have received from the Lord (what I also delivered to you), that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks broke, and said, ‘This is my body which shall be given up for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In like manner also the cup, after he had supped, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes.’ Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the cup; for he who eats and drinks unworthily, without distinguishing the body, eats and drinks judgment to himself” (I Corinthians 11:23-29).

Much of the Letter to the Hebrews is a discourse on this subject. I quote from Chapter Eight (emphases mine):

5] Who serve unto: The priesthood of the law and its functions were a kind of an example and shadow of what is done by Christ in his church militant and triumphant, of which the tabernacle was a pattern.

[6] But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises. [7] For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second. [8] For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Juda, a new testament: [9] Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. [10] For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:

[11] And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them: [12] Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more. [13] Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.

 […]

[11] But Christ, being come an high priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hand, that is, not of this creation: [12] Neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption. [13] For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of an heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh: [14] How much more shall the blood of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost offered himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? [15] And therefore he is the mediator of the new testament: that by means of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions, which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

From Chapter Nine:

[6] Holocausts for sin did not please thee. [7] Then said I: Behold I come: in the head of the book it is written of me: that I should do thy will, O God. [8] In saying before, Sacrifices, and oblations, and holocausts for sin thou wouldest not, neither are they pleasing to thee, which are offered according to the law. [9] Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth. [10] In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once.

If the Jews are still the Chosen People, Christianity is an absurdity.

You write:

Each of them falls under the example I used regarding the Holy Spirit: containing erroneous and anti-Catholic meaning in themselves, they nevertheless do not mean that Francis is willfully and consciously denying Catholic doctrine by saying them.

You mean the “Pope” of the Catholic Church does not know the historic, immemorial doctrine that outside the Church there is no salvation? In Evangelii Gaudium, his apostolic exhortation, which he said was part of the “universal magisterium,” Francis repeatedly denies or obscures the fact that one must hold the Catholic faith for salvation. He says the covenant with the Jews has not been revoked, in direct contradiction to Christ’s words. He says that the prayers of Muslims are “admirable.” He said non-Christians are “justified by the Grace of God,” and, contradicting another Church teaching, he says religious freedom is a human right.

Regardless of whether he knows these statements are contrary to the truths taught by the Magisterium for almost 2,000 years, Francis does not profess the Catholic Faith.  Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis Christi:

Actually only those are to be considered members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and who profess the true faith…

In order to be a Catholic, you must profess the faith. This principle is explained further in this video by the Most Holy Family Monastery (I am not endorsing everything on the MHFM site, which I have not evaluated):

You write:

if it is true that the Catholic Church has been “covered over,” by a false one since 1958, and has no true Pope, does this not mean she is no longer identified as “one,” as in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,” for how can the Church be One without a leader?

The Church is One in the days between when one pope dies and another one is elected, is it not? The Church is a Divine Institution. It does not disappear if there is no currently sitting pope. It is not present, however, wherever its truths are denied. The Vatican II Church teaches falsehoods so we readily know that it cannot be the indefectible Church of Jesus Christ. These falsehoods do not regard minor matters but are of the essence of the faith. They are repeated, they are blatant and they are profound. If we accept that the Church, rather than a false Church, is teaching error then the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against it.

You write:

Second, how does the sedevacantist position deviate from Martian Luther’s, who similarly held that the true Church had gone underground by about the fourth century, due to the perceived influx of pagan rituals into Christian beliefs and practices?

The difference is that Martin Luther denied the teachings of the Church. He denied the papacy and its principle of authority. He denied the Real Presence. He denied the sacred priesthood. A sedevacantist does not deny one iota of Catholic truth. He does not deny the papacy. In fact, he reveres it and refuses to accept the absurdity of a non-Catholic occupying the holy throne.

Sharbel Ferro responds to Catherine’s initial comments:

Catherine H. makes a good point; a point which is perhaps the most pertinent point one can make when coming to the question of whether or not John XXIII through to Francis I have been Popes of the Catholic church. It’s good to see a Catholic asking such a question, because it shows that she is thinking along the lines of Catholic Faith, and not popular opinions, emotional reasons, outrage at scandal, etc.

This article documents some of Francis I’s acts of formal heresy.

The details can be verified on any number of websites or news services. Images and footage can also be found to verify the details.

This youtube video contains plenty of information also about the scandalous and/or heretical things Francis has said and done. Of course not all of them are formal heresy, but some are. 

Also important to mention, is that, on account of the large number of incidents of Francis’ heresies, we are left in no doubt whatsoever that his acts and words are deliberate and are his abiding position on those various subjects. In other words, they are not mistakes, or media spin, or a lapses in judgement, or some attempt to please some or other person or group, but are actually what he believes and intends.

Heresy is a mortal sin. Mortal sin needs to fulfill three conditions to be a mortal sin. They are: full knowledge, grave matter, deliberate consent. In regards to heresy and Francis’ actions/words, we know that grave matter is present – the Third Council of Constantinople specifically mentions going into the synagogue or houses of heretics to join in prayer with them as a sin which incurs deposition or excommunication.

Deliberate consent is obviously present – we see Francis doing and saying many things along the lines of false ecumenism, and making efforts to promote and carry out these things.

Full knowledge is also obviously present. Francis I holds the office (externally) of Pope of the Catholic Church. If he could not be expected to know the Catholic faith, then no one could, but of course, all clergy are expected to know and teach the faith, and they are formed and formally educated to this end. Furthermore, all members of the Church have one only confession of faith. If someone confesses a different faith – even if it be in just one article – then we know that they don’t hold the Catholic faith.

Francis manifests and confesses a different faith as regards the dogma; “outside the Church there is no salvation”.