“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.”
(Pope Boniface VIII, 1302)

In this post on a thread regarding the validity of Novus Ordo ordinations, the Administrator (hereon Admin for short) of The Catacombs Forum made a remark that seemed out of touch with the topic at hand, so I asked for clarification in this post.  The Admin responded to me in this post (see also screenshot at the bottom of this article).  However, before responding to me, the Admin informed me privately that the subject of Benedict XVI still being pope would not be allowed to be discussed on the forum.  Here is the reason based on what the Admin wrote in the response post:

“P.S. Some of you are aware that The Catacombs does not permit debates on Sedevacantism. It is widely and frequently debated elsewhere but here, we simply follow the line of Archbishop Lefebvre. The Resignationist opinion is also not up for debate here. As mentioned above, it ultimately and logically leads to sedevacantism. The Church will speak on both issues once a good pope is on the Throne of St. Peter and dispel the mist of confusion over these issues. May Our sweet Mother hasten that day!”

So, according to the Admin, the position that Benedict XVI is still pope ultimately and logically leads to Sedevacantism.  This is incorrect.  It does not logically lead to Sedevacantism; rather, if Pope Benedict XVI ends up dying with most of the Catholic world still accepting Jorge Bergoglio as pope, as they do now, then the Chair of Peter would, as a matter of fact, become empty.  This hypothetical outcome would be only accidentally related to the classical definition of “Sedevacantism”.  That accidental relationship would consist of both Sedevacantists and “Resignationists” (as termed by the Admin) holding that the Chair of Peter is empty; that’s it.  The same accidental relationship occurred between Sedevacantists and the rest of the world at the period of time between the death of Pope John Paul II and election of Pope Benedict XVI.  Therefore, the Admin is wrong to prevent debate on The Catacombs Forum on the false conclusion that the “Resignationist” position logically leads to Sedevacantism.

As a result of the false conclusion derived by the Admin, the Admin cannot resort to using Archbishop Lefebvre in defense of the Admin’s position.  The position that Benedict XVI is still pope is simply a matter of canon law and of fact.  What happens in the future is in God’s Hands, but we cannot overlook canon law and fact because of what may happen in the future.  Now canon law requires that for a pope to validly resign, he must resign his office.  Pope Benedict XVI did not resign his office.  Therefore, he is pope.  I have demonstrated this in my paper.

Both the Admin and I agree that Benedict XVI was elected pope in 2005.  However, the Admin today states that Jorge Bergoglio is pope, whereas I today state that Benedict XVI is pope.  Since the Admin has changed positions:

I challenge the Admin of The Catacombs Forum to justify the change in position.

Are you, Admin, up for that challenge?  And will you allow me to rebut any response from you on The Catacombs Forum?  After all, that’s what forums are mainly for.

How and why Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is invalid by the law itself