Let’s not make the mistake of mixing up judging souls and judging words and actions. The evidence is overwhelming that Francis is not Catholic. It’s just that some think they can’t say it when it is as plain as the noses on their faces. Some are in complete denial. And still others are just blind...sometimes willingly.
With respect to his soul? He isn’t dead yet, so he still has time to repent and actually believe and teach the Catholic Faith and save his soul. Something he clearly has an issue with up until now.
From Novus Ordo Watch’s rebuttal of this:
White mentions that there are sedevacantists who demand that she agree with them, else she is not a Catholic. Can a sedevacantist do that? Does this not require the very authority we have just said we dont have?
who-are-you-accusatory-look.jpg
Binding someone elses conscience does indeed require ecclesiastical authority, something no sedevacantist has. If any sedevacantist were to pretend that he has the right of himself to bind someone elses conscience, he would be mistaken and act unjustly. In other words, no sedevacantist could say, You must be a sedevacantist because I say so. This would clearly be impermissible. But then again, is anyone doing this? If so, he is wrong.
But this is probably not what is actually happening. Rather, most probably, people are simply pointing out to Hilary White and her coreligionists that given the empirical facts about Francis, Sedevacantism is the only conclusion that does not run into conflict with Catholic teaching. It is thus the only conclusion that is possible, and hence it is also necessary. It is for this reason that others must embrace it not because we sedevacantists say so, as though we had any authority to bind consciences, but because according to Catholic teaching no other conclusion is possible; and since we have an obligation to adhere to Catholic teaching, we thus also have an obligation to embrace Sedevacantism. In short, the necessity for Hilary White and everyone else to be sedevacantist does not arise from sedevacantists say-so, it arises from the fact that all are obliged by Catholic teaching and the manifest empirical facts to arrive at this conclusion.
This, then, has nothing to do with hubris. It is simply akin to explaining to someone that if he understands what 1 means, what 2 means, what equal means, and what plus means, then he must conclude, necessarily, that 1+1=2. Or, to use our earlier example, if Jack is a bachelor and all bachelors are unmarried, then we must conclude necessarily that Jack is unmarried. No other conclusion is permitted or possible, and we cannot hide behind the copout that we dont have the authority to say that Jack is unmarried. Welcome to the authority of reason.