One has nothing to do with the other, I am a sede yet I still agree with him we are under obedience to God. I just refuse to believe your pope Jewgorglio is my pope and pope of the Church of Christ.
question to Pax was never responded to whether if the crisis were to have occurred before 1917 if you would then hold the sede position. What are your comments on the following
To answer your question, for me (and I suspect for most trads), I don't use the canon law definition of heretic, rather, I just go by what the pope says and does - if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy. It doesn't matter who says it or when. Sedes say popes cannot teach heresy, but if he does, he is not pope. To me, this very idea is such a blatant contradiction in and of itself that I used to disbelieve anyone would buy it - but I was wrong.
As for sedeism, for me it starts and ends with the dogma that it is necessary to be subject to the pope or no salvation for me. Because it is dogma, this is foundational for me, there is no possible way around this for me, nor is there any possible way for me to get out of this because it is a requirement for salvation, it is dogma that I remain a subject of the pope. I firmly believe that God certainly knew of this crisis when He gave us that dogma which I am bound to accept, so for me, I am sure not going to go sede, not in 1130, or 1917 or ever. For me, I do not accept the idea that God made being the pope's subject a requirement for salvation, but then left us without a pope. That is not at all the way God works.
If the dogma means what it says, then it means that we should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful. In doing this, I remain the pope's good subject but God's first, thus adhering to the highest principle in the Church while meeting the requirement for salvation.