So you're defending +Benedict?  Wow!  I have no confidence in anything you say then.  You have no Trad credibility.
.
For the record, Salza/Siscoe are pro new-sspx so they have no Trad credibility with me, either.  However, I do agree with their overall point (which lines up with John of St Thomas) that a Church declaration of some type is needed before there can be unity in the Church over who is/isn't a heretic, especially when we're dealing with the pope.

See, I'm in between.  I agree with Fr. Kramer that no declaration is required, and I don't believe that a "declaration" would have any strictly-juridical effect.  But I do believe that a declaration is needed in a case where the orthodoxy of the Pope is DISPUTED.  If the Church recognizes a papal claimant as a heretic, that's all that's required.  This recognition can be informal and tacit and need not take any particular form, or any form at all.  But when it's disputed, say there's 50-50 split of Catholics who think he's a heretic and Catholics who don't, then what exactly IS the mind of the Church?  That's where a General Council might gather so that the Church could "make up her mind", as it were, and formally declare the mind of the Church.  But I strongly agree with Father Kramer that no declaration is required per se.

Father Kramer admitted that it's not possible for there to be public heresy without SOMEONE recognizing it as such.  But what if you have ONE person who recognizes it?  Does the pope get deposed at that time?  Who can say if that guy is right or is just some nutjob?  I knew one man who claimed that Pius IX had vacated office due to heresy.  There's where John of St. Thomas's quoad se vs. quoad nos distinction comes in.  If the man is objectively heretical, but no one "catches" it, then is he still Pope?  We must say that he is.  What if 10 people, or even 10% of the Church recognizes it, but 90% are asleep and don't recognize it (one might argue this is the case with the V2 papal claimants)?  What is the status of such a pope?  Let's say it's true, that he's a heretic, but only 10% of the Church has recognized it?  That's the situation we're in.  S&S would claim he's still pope.  I have a hard time with that.  If the Arians had installed a Pope, since 90%+ of the Church had gone Arian, would that man have been a legitimate pope?  S&S would have to say YES.  I have a hard time accepting that.

I agree with Fr. Kramer that no declaration is required,

If the Church does not act, then disagreements will arise (as we see today).  From a practical standpoint, there would have to be a declaration of some type.

If the Church does not act, then disagreements will arise (as we see today).  From a practical standpoint, there would have to be a declaration of some type.

In the case I posited, of Bergoglio admitting publicly that he does not believe in the Real Presence, what would the actual "effect" of the declaration be, juridically, canonically, or otherwise?  There would be no need to "convict" Bergoglio of anything, since he's guilty by his own admission.

Then, if in such a case, no declaration is necessary, then it's not INHERENTLY necessary that there be a declaration.

Besides that, without a Pope at the head, a General Council would not have any real authority, but again would simply be serving as an expression of "the mind of the Church".

Only if it's disputed.  If Bergoglio came out and said, "I know the Church teaches the Real Presence, but I don't believe in it."  What declaration would be required?  There's no uncertainty whatsoever.  Only need for a declaration would be to establish definitively the mind of the Church regarding the matter in cases of dispute or doubt.  And this would simply be a "clarification" regarding the mind of the Church.  All that's essential is the mind of the Church, which does not require to be expressed in some formal docuмent.  It is not possible for the Church to "depose", so the effect of any such declaration would be dubious it not entirely non-existent ... again, other than to clarify to everyone what the Church as a whole thinks when it's not inherently clear.

That's right.

From Who Shall Ascend?.......

"...However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.

Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the
laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father, and has rendered him dangerous and unclean."

Are there any copies of Who Shall Ascend? available out there?  I can't find a full PDF copy, nor are there any available for sale on Amazon.  It's a real shame.

Yes that is the right link.  In Australia I had to go to EBay where I purchased my copies.  The import tax is large, but it is well worth it.

Fr. Wathen on Sedevacantism (Audio)

Disappears off the screen at first but after a couple of seconds starts speaking again.

...Father Wathen videos...

Thank you for posting these.