Hi all!
I was wondering if this argument has been put forth before against sesedevacantism or if any similar reasoning has been used.
Basically, there is a major difference between a heretic and a liar. What if popes since Vatican 2 have been liars who have taught heresies, but have NOT BEEN heretics! A person who teaches heresy is not a heretic by logical necessity. This is the difference between delusion (false belief, analoguously like heresy in this example) and between knowing the truth and deliberately choosing to lie. Someone who's a heretic delusionally believes in heresy against the Catholic faith. Yet, a pope who would choose to lie and spread heresies, would not be a heretic himself IF he didn't believe the lies he is spreading, and thus is still a Catholic and does not become a heretic by divine law. It is also possible that these popes have taught heresy without knowing, but this hypothesis is unlikely given the many years in seminary and experience which should give popes a clear understanding of the faith.
Note that, even with the SSPX, they were not excommunicated for rejecting Vatican 2, but basically got set up for a sting operation where, as I understand, they were given permission to consecrate bishops and the permission was denied at the last minute. Unfortunately, that is technically schismatic. My fear is that the popes, like Satan, really do still have the power and are trying to technically default traditionalists into schism. Is there any way out of this reasoning I have put forth? I don't believe I have stumbled upon it on any sedevacantist website.
See, now, it seems sedevacantists were trying to use the opposite tactic of arguing that popes since Vatican 2 have legally defaulted themselves through heresy. But if the popes were "merely" liars, they would not be excommunicated. The Holy Ghost would not protect against the sins of the individual conspirator, but could have preserved the papacy in this way. No ex cathedra statement has been made, as far as I'm aware, by post-V2 popes which contradicts tradition (though there has been a lot of contradiction of tradition going around!).
I did a quick search of those sins which incur latae sententiae excommunication; lying is not one of them. "Spirit of Vatican 2" heresies might be the "mortalest" of mortal sins, but could the popes have gotten away with not personally believing them, acting as hypocritical false shepherds who preach heresies yet retain their Catholicism? There is a difference between losing the state of sanctifying grace, and losing membership in the Church, though both may be closely related. Having an abortion is a mortal sin that automatically incurs excommunication. Yet big lies may be mortal sins, as in this example, but do not appear to give excommunication. Your thoughts on this angle or related reasonings?
P.S. One last analogy. Satan is like an "internet troll", he is "a liar, and the father thereof". A picture was posted online of a fat guy who became fit and went tanning, before/after picture. First picture his tattoo was on the left shoulder, second it was on the right shoulder. Internet trolls commented on the picture that it was a fake, and then delusional (heretical) people followed in on their cue. But those who realized the truth understood that the reason the tattoo switched was because the second picture was a self-shot in a mirror, while the first was a picture taken of him by someone else. Optics of a mirror switches the image around, so it was a real image. The internet trolls knew better, but were disseminating disinformation (which would be Satan-like on a serious issue). It was playfully done, but obvious that they knew better and that some were deceived.