I know that one of the main differences between the sedes and other trads here is that the former judges that the pope isn't a valid pope and the latter doesn't wish to "judge" the pope because it is "above their pay grade" (I've seen these terms quite often in the last week).

I would like to speak further about this because I always thought that when we talk about "judging" anyone we are talking about the state of their soul and where they will end up after death.  It seems to me that this is not what is going on here.  The sedes are merely stating that based on heretical actions that the pope (if ever legit) automatically/ipso facto loses his title and membership in the Catholic Church.  Church teaching backs this.  This is not a judgment on where he will end up when he dies which belongs to God.  This is something that just happens even if we don't "see" it, even if there is no official proclamation by the Church.  At least that is my understanding of things.  

Please discuss.

I don't think fear of judging the pope is based on the universal admonition against judging souls, but rather on the specific admonition of Pope Innocent III "he (the Pope) judges all and is judged by no one."

Of course, Pope Innocent said this in a time when Catholic laymen were blessed not to have electronic media that gave them access to every papal "off the cuff remark" and personal impropriety (which no doubt would have caused disastrously widespread scandal during the pontificates of say, Stephen VI, John XII, or Alexander VI).

The pope was someone the average Catholic never saw, and could not even pick out of a lineup. The pope was the Vicar of Christ, whose name was remembered in prayers, and that was about it. The duty of the Catholic layman was salvation of his own soul, building up his personal sanctity and developing his Sensus Catholicus. At times that proved difficult (the Arian crisis of the 4th Century and, well, the Modernist crisis of today come to mind), and during the Western Schism, laymen could not even know who the pope was for close to a century... But the layman's duty remained the same, as it remains today.

My own view on the "option" of Sedevacantism (which is de facto lay judgement of the pope) is identical to Bishop Williamson's (as I quoted recently in the "Would you follow him" thread). To paraphrase: We Catholics had been spoiled with a century's worth of good popes before the crisis hit.... And now we're finding out (thanks to electronic media) just how far astray Christ will allow the head(s) of His Church go, while still not allowing the Church to cease being what it has always been.

And this may be apropos of nothing at all (or it may not) but most of the sedevacantists I've personally known have been converts from Protestantism.

I would like to speak further about this because I always thought that when we talk about "judging" anyone we are talking about the state of their soul and where they will end up after death.  

No, I think that most folks are judging Pope Francis' actions, but not his soul.  Although, there is a tiny minority who enjoy judging his soul and presuming where it will go.  

We are called to judge righteously and unhypocritically.  But we are not really supposed to determine where a soul goes.  That is up to God's Divine Will, which we cannot know right now.  

Sedevacantist do not sit around and bad mouth who they believe is the pope, nor do our priest mention the "pope" from the pulpit, except to quote the true popes, of which they do often.  They are not hypocrites who believe one way and speak another. This is why most forums do not allow us because they realize how foolish they look.  They insult God to insist a heretic can be His Vicar.  They believe that God allows truth and error to be His Vicar.  They believe the Holy Ghost looks the other way because of some Church laws that were put into place when times were normal.  Laws are for the good of the people, and when in crisis, man made laws do not even come into the picture.  

   

I don't think it has anything to do with anyone realizing how foolish they look so they won't allow talk of SV - - and what ever happened to your belief that God chooses which popes get elected? I take it you've changed your mind on that one.  

A question for Matthew- I've heard "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" is not tolerated here.

At what stage does sedevacantism become "dogmatic"?

A question for Matthew- I've heard "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" is not tolerated here.

At what stage does sedevacantism become "dogmatic"?

Define "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" for us.

Quote

God chooses which popes get elected? I take it you've changed your mind on that one.  

He does, but He chooses Catholic men, not Masons.  

I don't change my mind when it comes to doctrine of the Church, with God's grace I never will.  

Please post the doctrine stating God chooses the popes.

Matthew- Never mind. I see you answered this about a year ago. It's a good answer, so I'll paste it below.

Dogmatic sedevacantism is where "sede vacante" (the See is vacant) is raised to the level of a dogma, and that everyone denying this "dogma" is a heretic or non-Catholic.

Dogmatic Sedevacantists claim that those who don't adhere to sedevacantism are not just taking a different path in the Crisis, but that they actually need to be converted. If they don't convert, they must be either ignorant or of bad will -- just like a good Catholic would say about non-Catholics.

The idea the sedevacantism can be considered like a dogma of the Faith is ridiculous. Absolute, googly-eyed, "where's my straightjacket" insanity.

As an aside, dogmatic sedevacantists are NOT welcome on CathInfo. In other words, if you consider most CathInfo members to be non-Catholic, or matter for "conversion", you are not welcome here.

There are plenty of intelligent, educated Catholics of good will who look at Sedevacantism and keep walking. Such is a completely legitimate position.

As someone told me recently, "There are unanswerable questions both for the Sedevacantists and the Recognize-and-Resist side. Neither side has a perfect answer to all the objections/questions."

So we are free to pick our poison.