Sedeplenism involves magisterium sifting.  What if I were a modernist living at the time of St. Pius X and just decided that because his teachings were merely ordinary magisterium, I could just ignore them and carry on?   I would have rightly been condemned.  Imagine the election of a new pope, say, Pius XIII.  Now since the precedent has been set, I have to judge and question pretty much anything he teaches to determine whether he was in error or teaching truth.

Sedevacantism involves pope sifting.  What if I were a Gallican living during the time of Vatican I and I declared that Pius IX was a heretic for teaching papal infallibility and therefore not pope and that therefore Vatican I was invalid?  Again in the case of the hypothetical Pius XII, if he ever taught something I found to be heretical, I could just declare him deposed.

So what's the key?

I have a response but want to hear what others think first.

The implications of sedeplenism (which I assume you are conflating with R&Rism, since there are plenty of sedeplenists [most, in fact] who accept the conciliar magisterium) are far more dangerous and complicated than those of sedevacantism.

R&Rism is simply not supported by Catholic theologians.  The usual tracts about resisting the head (St. Bellarmine) and refusing an immoral command were never written with ecuмenical councils, universal liturgies or codes of canon law in mind!  These quotes are contextual with private commands, and at best maybe very, very local "laws" which would not in any way be confused with universal ones or anything which would touch on the universal disciplines of the Church, which are infallible.  No theologian can ever be found speculating on whether or not the Church could promulgate harmful laws and liturgies.  Such a belief is contrary to Her nature, and was never even entertained-- and keep in mind that theologians entertain A LOT of things that they don't privately think could happen, but they do not entertain that which would violate Catholic doctrine, which this idea does.  

It runs roughshod over the nature and purpose of the Church.  We are left with a Church that is essentially powerless to protect Her children from error, in fact, even approves it and recommends it!  The Church becomes a trailer trash single mom, feeding the little one's McDonalds day in and day out.  Unreliable and whorish.  

This can only be solved with the (apt) Conciliar/Catholic Church distinction (all that which is un-Catholic is the product of the Conciliar, not Catholic Church) which most R&Rists are keen to make, but this actually brings them closer to sedevacantism, because by logical necessity the putative pope who has approved these doctrines for the Conciliar Church has lost his office by not only belonging to but by solely officiating a false religion!  Shockingly, some will not admit that this poses any difficulty.  By their own admission, the pope is not Catholic-- and that's OK!  Hopefully critical thinkers will realize that accepting the non-Catholic pope is actually expressing the very same Frankenchurch ecuмenical errors of Vatican II that they claim to reject, incorporating those who do not profess the Catholic faith into the Church of Christ.  Logically, there is no impediment to the Dalai Lama becoming pope, or to having a schismatic Orthodox Patriarch become pope if one accepts that the Conciliar Pope can also be the Catholic pope.

And of course, if one fails to make the distinction between conciliar and Catholic (as the NSSPX seems wont to do) then one is left with much worse than a contradiction, but with an objective blasphemy (without saying that those, confused, who believe it, are guilty of blasphemy).  The Church is an ugly mistress, trying to please all the different men of the world by bending to their passing whims, trying to impress them by complimenting them on their base and sinful tendencies.  It is NOT the Bride of Christ, it is the bride of the world, which is to say it is the bride of Satan!  

Of course, the reason for holding to R&Rism is typically lineated as preserving the Church's visibility.  But in attempting to "preserve" it, it absolutely annihilates it.  The Church is a visible unity of faith.  By accepting non-Catholics as not only members but representatives and even the visible head of Her, that unity is utterly destroyed.  While R&Rism typically balks at SVism because it makes the Church "invisible," R&Rism results in a Church which is all TOO visible: in fact, it's everywhere!  Your Jєωιѕн mailman represents it, your protestant co-worker represents it, your atheist sister-in-law is a part of it, etc.  

Of course, SVism doesn't actually make the Church invisible-- at least, SVists don't think it does!  They wouldn't believe it if they did, and wouldn't spend so much time explaining how it doesn't.  So far as I can tell, as long as the Church is visible to SOME, it is sufficiently visible.  The Church at Pentecost is essentially the Church of today.  It was "invisible" to the vast majority of the world.  But the Church began at Pentecost with all of Her marks.  She did not acquire the mark of visibility only once She had physically spread throughout the world.  She was visible from the instant She began, and the scope of Her visibility has grown and diminished accordingly, but She is visible nevertheless.

SVism isn't without it's proverbial hiccups, but they are more practical than anything else.  They certainly do not boldly challenge the nature of the Church in the way that R&Rism eventually will do.

A future Pius XIII would have to be preaching, proclaiming and promulgating a new gospel, a new faith for Catholics to conclude that he is a non-pope.

No, he need only embrace a single heresy.

Since most of the critics regarding my position are from the sedevacantist side, I need you to answer this question.

Let's say I was alive during the reign of Pius IX.  I strongly felt that papal infallibility was heretical.  When Vatican I declared papal infallibility, I simply "recognized" Pius IX as a heretic and declared the entire Vatican I Council illegitimate.

What would have stopped me from doing so?

As some of you know, I believe that what I have termed sede-doubtism is the only appropriate Catholic response to this crisis.  But I'll articulate that later.  I'm interested in getting an answer from the sedevacantist side regarding my Pius IX / Vatican I example above.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Since most of the critics regarding my position are from the sedevacantist side, I need you to answer this question.

Let's say I was alive during the reign of Pius IX.  I strongly felt that papal infallibility was heretical.  When Vatican I declared papal infallibility, I simply "recognized" Pius IX as a heretic and declared the entire Vatican I Council illegitimate.

What would have stopped me from doing so?

Submission to the Roman Pontiff and the ecclesia docens.

You could only come to that position by being ignorant to Church teaching.  

However, it's precisely understanding Church teaching that causes one to react to the conciliar pontiffs.  The hermeneutic of continuity is bogus.  All traditionalists agree with this.  Up until the council, the Church taught X, and suddenly at the council we are supposed to believe she began to teach Y, which is incompatible with X.

No such dynamic exists between papal infallibility at Vatican I and before Vatican I.  

This has been repeated thousands of times.  The fact that people STILL ask this question (if not this exact question but some form of the same question) makes me question one's sincerity.

you lose the A PRIORI GUARANTEE regarding the veracity of the magisterium.

Ladislaus is quite correct, actually, on this point, and I don't think those who are objecting have understood his argument.

If the fact of a Papacy were not a priori infallibly certain, how could a dogma he declared be infallibly certain? The answer is that it never could be. If the one is open to question, then the other is also equally open to question.

The truth is that every Papacy that is accepted by all the Bishops of the Church  becomes from then onwards a dogmatic fact, and this external sign is an assured effect of a valid election.

First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not he exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.

The truth is that every Papacy that is accepted by all the Bishops of the Church  becomes from then onwards a dogmatic fact, and this external sign is an assured effect of a valid election.

Hey, what's up Nishant. Thanks for taking out some of your time on this V-Day. You definitely bring more considerations and added texture to the discussion... ( = (meaning, stop it, your making me having to think more!)



The Bull of Pope Paul IV Against Heretics
cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, February 15th, 1559

1. In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.
(Implies that an imposter can slip into the See of Peter, therefore not having been 'protected' from the magisterium. Perhaps, a heretic who is not an apostate- and is not found out till after the fact of being 'the Pope.').

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
(Alludes to the possibility of all of the Cardinals being fooled; thus validating the concept of an invalid election )

2. Hence, by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity, in abomination of so great a crime (than which none in the Church of God can be greater or more pernicious) by the fulness of our Apostolic Power, We enact, determine, decree and define (since the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties are to remain in efficacious force and strike all those whom they are intended to strike) that:-
(solemn ex-cathedra language)

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this docuмent of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.
(meant for the Universal Church)