CathInfo.com

The authority is that of St. Paul, who in his letter to Titus 3 commands that an obstinate person should be avoided once he is manifestly revealed, and understands that this should happen before any excommunication or sentence of a judge.

[ . . . ]

But a pope cannot be avoided or separated from while still remaining pope; for how can we avoid our head? How can we separate from a member that is joined to us?

So how should we reconcile all those quotes, Trad boy? St Robert's teachings on heretical bishops, his teaching on Councils. His teachings on the Pope not being removed unless by men. His requirement for warnings to demonstrate pertinacity. It's not so clear is it? Don't we need the Church to adjudicate on this disputed matter?

Of course he does.  He clearly says right there in his statement of the 5th opinion, which he defends, that it is only because the Pope has already been deposed by God that the Church can judge him.

So if Jorge got up tomorrow morning and started spewing "I no longer believe that Jesus Christ is God.  He was just a man who was very close to God" and it was clearly no slip of the tongue, etc. ... then according to the absurd position spun by these R&R, well, we wouldn't "KNOW" he was a heretic until the Church got together and declared him to be such.

That is the height of insantiy.

But here's the thing that these R&R don't realize and where they shoot themselves in the face with the same argument.  If we can't know whether something is Catholic or heretical without the judgment of the Church, then how can they "know" that there are errors and heresies in Vatican II.  In fact, the Church has "judged" Vatican II to be perfectly Catholic.

So they reject the judgment of the Church where it comes to determining whether V2 is Catholic but then require the judgment of the Church before we can know that Jorge is a heretic.

This hypocrisy would be laughable if their opinion weren't so pernicious.

Also, if membeship in the Church is determined by the judgment of the Church, this makes Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι Catholics, while Traditional Catholics are not Catholic ... as Salza had to concede.  So Salza finally had to admit the logical conclusion of his bogus principles.  Unfortunately, Johnson is not as honest as Salza was.  Johnson wants to have his anti-sedevacantist cake and then eat his Resistance position as well.  But these same principles cut both ways.  Church has judged Johnson and company to be outside the Church, so that means they're outside the Church.  When the reality of membership in the Church can only be known by the formal judgment of the Church, Johnson is outside the Church.  But they hypocritically reject this consequence of the same principles.

We cannot know that a Jorge Bergoglio while repeatedly, consistently, and pretinaciously rejecting EENS dogma (including verbatim the Council of Florence by declaring these schismatic martyrs to be Catholic saints) is actually a heretic without the judgment of the Church, nor even if he came out tomorrow and explicitly denied the Divinity of Christ, but we CAN know that Vatican II is contrary to the faith DESPITE the fact that the Church has judged otherwise.  We can appeal to Tradition to override and trump the Church's judgment, but we cannot appeal to Tradition (not even to clearly defined dogma) to determine that Jorge is a heretic who rejects Tradition.

It's the biggest pile of "theological" horse manure I have ever seen hin my life and the absurdity is caused by their SVDS, their Sedevacantist Derangement Syndrome.

So they reject the judgment of the Church regarding the orthodoxy of Vatican II but then require the judgment of the Church to determine the orthodoxy of Jorge.