CathInfo.com

If it's only a recognition of fact, and not a solution in itself, then why do sedevacantists (many of them) insist that everyone be a sedevacantist? If sedevacantists believe that God will solve the Crisis, then why insist that their way is the only way? It seems to me that sedevacantists are the ones who want to be in charge, or at least in charge of Tradition.

Many of us think it's spiritually dangerous to even have a toe in the Novus Ordo. We also know we cannot follow false shepherds, so we don't and our actions reflect this belief.
Unfortunately, that has led to the schismatic attitudes and dogmatism that is common in all trad positions, it is not unique to just sedevacantism. So, your point about a theological imposition is moot. SSPX/Resistance types insisting that Francis "IS the Pope" with certainty is no less imposing than sedevacantists saying he isn't with the same certainty. Your own anti-sede attitude reflects the same exact imposition you're complaining about.

I would suggest stepping back and looking at the bigger picture here. I've been pretty critical lately of the dogmatic types in all the groups, especially after flying too close to "Dimondism". Your issue is that you're applying a legitimate criticism to only one group and dismissing us outright rather than applying the same criticisms to the other groups.

Hey Stubborn,

Yes, sometimes we can interpret things in different ways, especially after many years.

So if we are to interpret it wouldn't it make sense to see if there are other statements by the Church or saints declaring the same thing?

Perhaps when there is ambiguity inherent or present, otherwise no. There is no ambiguity in cuм ex, which is precisely the reason it is so often quoted.

This is why I posted the other quotes in my post that brought this up.

They are from Canon Law and some from saints as well which seem to me to have the same conclusion that cuм Ex has.

Here are the ones from Canon Law.  Do these statements serve to interpret what cuм Ex meant?

I would not say interpret, I would say they are more like echoing Cuм ex, yet the quotes do not make sense *for lay people* for at least a few reasons.

1) Sedes reference the oft repeated  phrase: "What is required by divine law for this appointment" / “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself,"  - - which begs the question: Which divine law?

We all know what Divine Law is, it is a law given to us directly from the mouth of God, hence the name, "Divine Law" aka the Ten Commandments. So which Divine Law are they talking about? I asked this question to Fr. Cekada (rip) at least once but he never answered - because there is no Divine Law stating heretics and schismatics are barred from being pope - there's not one even close.

2) Nowhere in cuм ex or any of the oft posted quotes is there any mention ever made of any penalty incurred upon those peers or superiors guilty of appointing or electing a heretic into office. As such, there is no law to stop peers and superiors from churning out invalid heretics endlessly who lose their offices upon appointment, and so on ad infinitum. How does this make any sense? 

3) So the law says that they lose their office automatically, ipso facto and without any official censure or declaration whatsoever. Which means they lost their office in secret, which means *no one* except the heretic himself knows he lost his office. What it does *not* mean is that everyone or anyone else knows they lost their office - because it happens automatically without declaration.

What this all means is that those laws are laws meant for those in office, not the business of any layperson. Like a
doctor's hippocratic oath is not the business of those who are not doctors. We cannot tell an abortion doctor that he is no longer a doctor, same goes for heretics in the clergy and hierarcy who hold positions within the Church. Not sure if I am explaining it properly but hopefully you get the jist.