CathInfo.com

It was understandable to hold to these anti-Sede positions before Bergoglio.

I'm glad we agree on that much Hank. I believe the principles have not changed, as Pere Jean put it in 2016:

“It is understandable that some Traditional Catholics... be deeply troubled by the scandals of Pope Francis, who seems to have surpassed his predecessors'. The sedevacantist solution may appear to them as the simplest, most logical, and best. In fact, the fundamental problem remains the same since the '70s, and the prudent attitude of Abp Lefebvre, in considering the risk of excessive and rash judgement, with the attendant danger of schism, should not be abandoned. In 2001, the “Small Catechism on Sedevacantism” published by Le Sel de la Terre concluded: “This is a position that has not been proven at the speculative level, and it is imprudent to hold it at a practical level, an imprudence that can bear very serious consequences.” (No. 36, p. 117) This conclusion holds as much for Pope Francis as for Pope John-Paul II who had kissed the Quran.

This Pope may appear more vulgar, maybe even more intent on destroying the Church, yet is it more shocking than the outrages committed against the First Commandment by Pope John Paul II, for example? Archbishop Lefebvre thought that the Pope could not do anything worse. St Robert Bellarmine talks about the Pope who wants to destroy the Church, and he says in relation to that (a Pope with that intention) that our hope is not in human enterprise, but in God Who, even if he cannot be deposed, will convert him or abolish him from our midst. He doesn't say it disqualifies his papacy. Regarding the heretic pope there is no consensus. Nor is there a dogma relating to the quantity of heresy that deposes a pope. It is a vexed question, why be dogmatic on this issue when the Church is not?

Is the Conciliar Church a new religion that's alien to the Catholic religion?  If not, then they had better get their posteriors back into subjection to the Vicar of Christ (and then work like all the Motu groups from within the Church to effect change regarding these fallible mistakes), since there's no salvation outside of subjection to the Roman Pontiff.  If so (and +Lefebvre asserted that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks/notes of the Catholic Church), then this has crossed over from a problem of infallibility into one of indefectibility, which they then deny, and therefore gut the foundations of Catholicism.

Ladislaus, this argument you keep repeating, it refuses the necessary distinctions that our Holy Catholic Faith requires us to make.

Obviously, we remain the true subjects of the Vicar of Christ, and we remain in the Church. You don't have to refuse the authority (declare the see vacant) of the one who is abusing his authority, in order to be a true subject, to the contrary. It is as simple as the distinction between true and false obedience. The fact that so many have been deceived does not allow you to take down the authority, it is not a numbers game. Just because the danger of this Pope is so great that we have to remove ourselves from his midst, does not mean we have the authority to depose him.

Archbishop Lefebvre, please note, also understood that the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church are mysteriously interwoven making the situation much more complex than you want to believe.

On the question of being subject to the Vicar of Christ, here is my response to a family member who made this claim: "We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII)...Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX, and the  Resistance, teach the opposite.

You would evidently have us believe that these words require a Catholic always to blindly do the personal will of the reigning Pope and slavishly obey him in all things regardless of what he commands, being secure in the knowledge that he can thereby be certain of doing the Will of God. You extrapolate from this to deduce that the Pope could therefore never command anything sinful, let alone against the Faith. Your logic continues, that if he does command something sinful he cannot be Pope, or ceases to be Pope. Is this Catholic doctrine?

What does it mean, to be subject to the Roman Pontiff?

"If the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's (the Pope's!) subject, rebuked him in public on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith" - St Thomas Aquinas, S Th IIa IIae Q33 A4 ad2
Is St Thomas in error?

Children are commanded by God and the law of nature to be subject to their parents: "Children", says St Paul, "obey your parents in all things, for that is pleasing to the Lord" - Col 3:20

The Holy Ghost bids servants be subject to their masters: "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" - I Peter 2:18.
 
Immediately before this, St Peter admonishes us all: "Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God's sake; whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of the good. For so is the will of God... as free and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, but as the servants of God" - I Peter 2:13-16

And again, St Paul addressing us all: "Let everyone be subject to higher authorities: for there exists no authority but from God... therefore he that resisteth the authority, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation" - Rom 13:1-2

Now how could the Lord God command us to obey all authorities in all things and not to resist them, since to do so would be to resist God himself, under threat of eternal damnation? 

Obviously, that is not the meaning of the Word of God. We must understand words in the sense they are meant, according to our Catholic Faith, and according to true obedience. The Holy Ghost doesn't specify the exceptions: "unless the authority commands you to do something contrary to the law of God, in which case you are duty-bound to resist". Nor does the Holy Ghost, nor our Holy Catholic Faith, nor our common sense, tell us that by so commanding the authority ceases to exist. Our parents are still our parents, worthy of our honour and respect; the king is still the king, worthy of our honour and respect; the priest is still a man of God, worth of our honour and respect; the Pope is still the Pope, worthy of our honour and respect. Not on account of their unworthy words or deeds are they worthy of our honour, but because of Whom they represent in the office they hold. We remain their subjects, but we must "resist them to their face" if need be, respectfully and humbly, in order not to make "liberty a cloak for malice" and to "obey God rather than men".

To take the words of Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam to mean that a Catholic must obey a Pope in all things, or that a Pope can never command something sinful that ought to be resisted, or that he can never teach heresy outside the confines of his Infallibility is a monstrous error. It is not what the words say, it is not what the words mean, and it is not what the Church teaches.

We are subjects of our civil rulers. They have authority from God, and on that account we show them respect and follow their directives when they do not conflict with the law of God. If they pass a wicked law, we resist them, but they nonetheless retain their authority and we remain their subjects. So it is with the Pope.

A true subject is not one who practices a servile obedience towards his superior, but one who uses his God-given intellect and will to practice the virtue of true obedience. Any understanding of these magisterial teachings contrary to that is simply not Catholic.

With regard to ANY heretic, there is consensus. The consensus can be found in 1917 Canon Law. According to Canon 2314, a public heretic is ipso facto excommunicated. This requires no declaration or official deposition.

There are three phases of the excommunication process described in Canon 2314, following St. Paul in the Epistle to Titus 3:10-11:

1. automatic [ipso facto] excommunication (loss of power to act and of jurisdiction). See Canons 2263 and 2264.
2. declared infamous after the first warning (loss of fruits of their office). See Canon 2266.
3. deposed ontologically from the office itself after the second warning (loss of the office without hope of recovery). See Canon 2266.

Epistle to Titus, chapter 3:

10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: 11 Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

Is the Pope under the law?
Yes, if it is a divine law, correct?
Yet this very topic of a pope heretic has been discussed by theologians for centuries with no consensus.
Even St Robert Bellarmine in his 'fifth true opinion' requires the admonitions. But who gives them for a Pope? St Robert also says in his work on Councils (again, opinon) that he remains Pope until the Council convicts him or declares the fact.
It is just endless, Angelus, you want to make something certain, something dogma, when it is not; it is a question that is uncertain, a question that has never been settled by the Church, a question which is still the subject of heated theological debate, but you want to be Pope (for that is what it comes down to) and pontificate on the matter. You want to settle it for the Church. How can you not see that?