The teaching that “a doubtful pope is no pope” is backed by sound pre-vatican 2 theologians with good reason for several reasons.  If you take a look at it from the protestant perspective, which claims that no human being is infallible, and that we all can judge the truth individually, you will see that the Catholic position, that the Pope is infallible and cannot bind error on the Church is an essential doctrine to defend.  But the “recognize and resisters”, by admitting that those who they recognize as Popes can bind error on the Church and must be ignored, tacitly admit that they can bind error on the Church and therefore, are not infallible.  

The sedevacantist, during this time of great confusion, does a great service to the papacy, by defending its integrity by preserving the dogmatic fact that a valid Pope cannot impose error on the Church and any putative pontiff who tries to do so, proves, by that very fact, not to be a valid Pontiff.  Once this is understood the root cause to the craziness is understood.  No longer do we have to try to figure out what the “Pope” does this, or teaches that or imposes the other thing.  No longer to we have to understand heresy in the light of traditional.  No longer do we have cram a square peg into a round hole and say “see, it fits.”  You call the errors and heresies by their proper names and the imposers, promulgators and teachers thereof the same - heretics, non-Catholics, and therefore non-popes.

The proof is there in Catholic teaching:

Doubts, and Doubts

A word on "doubt" in this context. A doubtful pope is no pope, as the theologians say. If John Paul II is doubtfully pope, then he can command no obedience whatsoever from good Catholics. For in the matter of subjection to the Roman Pontiff, only certainty is sufficiently safe. Now, it is granted that in their current state of doubt about the theology and law involved in this matter, the Redemptorists could not legitimately doubt John Paul II's claim. But if, on the other hand, their doubts about the teaching of the Church could be eliminated, then their clear suspicion that John Paul II is a heretic would place that matter on a whole different footing. Suddenly they would be faced with a doubtful pope, and a doubtful pope is no pope at all, and the obligation on Catholics is to refuse him. As “sedevacantists” do.

Consider the explanation to be found in the most authoritative post-Code (1917) commentary, Wernz-Vidal: "…jurisdiction is essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is plain from the nature of the relationship. However, if a pope is truly and permanently doubtful, the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the part of any subject. For the law, 'Obedience is owed to the legitimately-elected successor of St. Peter,' does not oblige if it is doubtful; and it most certainly is doubtful if the law has been doubtfully promulgated, for laws are instituted when they are promulgated, and without sufficient promulgation they lack a constitutive part, or essential condition. But if the fact of the legitimate election of a particular successor of St. Peter is only doubtfully demonstrated, the promulgation is doubtful; hence that law is not duly and objectively constituted of its necessary parts, and it remains truly doubtful and therefore cannot impose any obligation. Indeed it would be rash to obey such a man who had not proved his title in law. Nor could appeal be made to the principle of possession, for the case in question is that of a Roman pontiff who is not yet in peaceful possession. Consequently in such a person there would be no right of command - i.e. he would lack papal jurisdiction." (Scholion 454).

Therefore if John Paul II is doubtful, which is at least the case, then the obligation on Catholics is to avoid him. A fortiori, upon those of us who have taken the trouble to do some serious reading on the question, so that no reasonable doubt remains, there exists an absolutely clear moral obligation to reject John Paul II as a patent fraud.

And this raises another set of considerations. It seems self-evident that since many prudent and learned men (I speak of others, not myself), including numerous priests - some who were ordained in the 'fifties - have concluded that John Paul II is not the pope, it seems perfectly evident that the case must have real merit. And since all good Catholics regard the question of whom the Holy Father actually is as being a matter of the first importance, since subjection to him is absolutely necessary for salvation, it follows that all good Catholics will want to investigate this question as well as their situation permits. Far from the situation being one in which good men will be satisfied to remain in doubt, it is notoriously a matter in which real effort ought to be expended in the endeavour of eliminating doubt.

But whatever else may be said about this “anti-sedevacantist” stance of the Transalpine Redemptorists, one thing is obvious. There is now yet another example of “anti-sedevacantist” polemic in the public forum, and it demands an answer, for the truth is at stake, and when the truth is at stake, souls are at stake. Furthermore, the nature of the second of the two main articles is such as to constitute a gross misrepresentation of those many informed, prudent, and good Catholics who have realised that the Holy See is at present vacant. That the author, probably one of the religious of the Transalpine Redemptorists, is innocent, is not being questioned. Indeed, I believe in his good will. But that his article misrepresents the typical “sedevacantist” is indisputable, as should become clear as it is critically examined.

The entire article can be read here: http://www.sedevacantist.com/isitcatholic.html

We have a list of disputed popes and anti-popes who do not hold a candle to the new “popes” when it comes to repeatedly engaging in heretical acts, and teaching heresies in encyclicals and approving a heretical catechism, not to mention binding an invalid incentive to impiety false mass on us and invalid and doubtful sacraments and heretical canon law.  Honorius, Liberius and the claimants during the Great Western Schism (GWS), were doubted and rightfully so, but they do not even hold a candle to Paul 6, JP 2 and Ratzinger.  Not even on the same planet.  And yet it is the SVs that are crazy?  Hmm.

http://www.sedevacantist.com/pontiffs.html

Read about the (GWS) and see if any of those claimants hold a candle to Paul 6, JP2 and Ratzinger.   When comparing the GWS to our times we see that not only did the Catholics during the GWS not have the hindsight we have now but their claimants were far more orthodox than what we have today.  It is apples and oranges to be sure:

http://www.sedevacantist.com/schism.html

You will note that it is possible that none of the claimants during the GWS Pope. This may be the minority view, especially today, but it is possible.  The same with Liberius who may have lost his office to Felix for a time.  There is no doubt about that.  But again those guys to not come close to the manifest undeniable and repeated heresies of the V2 guys.  
 

Thank you.    :smile:

I put a little thought and effort into that one.