The Church guided by God's Perfect Divine Providence DID foresee these times and told us exactly what to do.

More and more your ecclesiology ceases to be recognizable as Catholic ... all in your desperate attempt to salvage the legitimacy of Jorge Bergoglio et al.

Hello DR-

I bought it on the basis of the reviews, and just recently received it.

Give me three days to read it, and we can enter into the argument.

Have you read it?  If so, what did you think?

Yes of course, but this has nothing to do with what I said.

But the Fathers et al were not prophets, they never foresaw these times.

“Immediately, one ought to resists in facie, a pope who is publicly destroying the Church; for example, to want to give ecclesiastical benefits for money or charge of services. And one ought to refuse, with all obedience and respect, and not to give possession of these benefits to those who bought them.”

“What is there to do when the pope wishes without reason to abrogate the positive right order? To this he responds, ‘He certainly sins; one ought not to permit him to proceed thus, nor ought one to obey him in what is bad; one ought to resist him with a polite reprehension. In consequence, if he wished to deliver all the treasures of the Church and the patrimony of St. Peter to his parents; if he was left to destroy the Church or in similar works, one ought not to permit him to work in this form, having the obligation of giving him resistance. And the reason for this is, in these matters he has no right to destroy. Immediately evident of what he is doing, it is licit to resist him. Of all this it results that, if the pope, by his order or his acts, destroys the Church, one can resist and impede the execution of his commands.’”

“If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs, one should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to resist; if attacked by force, one shall be able to resist with force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.”

“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that attacks the body, it is also licit to resist (him) who attacks the soul, or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, he who intends to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of that which he wills. It is not licit, with everything, to judge him impose a punishment, or depose him, for these actions are accorded to one superior to the pope.”

Right, let us put this to the test, a real problem for sedevacantism:

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563):
‘The sacred and holy, ecuмenical, and general Synod of Trent, - lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,  -
‘Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ -- (Denzinger – 783/786)

On February 24th 1616 the assessments of Galileo's heliocentrism were declared:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”(considered an immutable, irreformable truth in virtue of the fact that this revelation had been constantly preserved and held by Church tradition since the time of the Apostles);
(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”

THEN IN 1820 Pope Pius VII decrees:

1820 Decree states: ‘The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the Earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII….His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the Earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors.

THEN IN 1882 Pope Pius VII decrees again:

‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun [the defined heresy in 1616], according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’

Inherent in the above two decrees of 1820 and 1822 is that you the flock can ignore the defined and declared heresy regarding the interpretation of Divine Scripture as held by all the Fathers.

It seems then, since 1820 we have had popes not only tolerating but believing and teaching what the Church defined as FORMAL heresy, in other words a heresy that had been long condemned as heresy in the past was made FORMAL HERESY in 1616 and confirmed again as formal heresy by Pope Urban VIII in 1633.

I meant the Fathers, Doctors, saints etc. who taught of the necessity of obedience and submission to the pope. That the people in the conciliar era did forsake the teachings of your quotes, and do/did freely and blindly submit to the conciliar authority, wrong though they are.  Had the Fathers known this crisis would happen, they all would have added the disclaimers your quotes provide, along with stating the necessity of submission....

one ought to resists in facie, a pope who is publicly destroying the Church....
nor ought one to obey him in what is bad; one ought to resist him with a polite reprehension.....
“If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs, one should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to resist;...
I say it is licit to resist by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of that which he wills. It is not licit, with everything, to judge him impose a punishment, or depose him, for these actions are accorded to one superior to the pope.”

It is Lad who, by what he keeps saying, apparently believes that those of us who actually do what the Fathers in your quotes teach, that our "ecclesiology ceases to be recognizable as Catholic."

“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”

“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact(ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church… A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

“The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”

“If indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”

“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”

“‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could he be its head.”