Why not settle the matter and post some quotes from sedevacantist saints to support your above opinion. Maybe better yet, post some quotes from the  sedevacantist popes themselves that support your opinion.

That would settle the matter for sure - at least it certainly should.  

1.  A man must have the divine virtue of Faith to be a pope.

No necessarily true, and the reason is that there is no way we can judge the internal forum of the Pope. We can only see the external. So only if the Pope would intent to proclaim an ex-cathedra heresy ( which is protected by divine infallibility), then we would know for sure he has lost his Faith and even then, it must be proved that his heresy is formal.  

This is explained in Pastor Aeternus, Vatican I Council, which defined Papal Infallibility.

Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4, 7-9:

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

 8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

 9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

The hypothesis of a pope losing his Faith and falling into personal or even public heresy is not contrary to the teaching of Vatican I.

Furthermore, in order to be a valid Pope, only three things are required:

 1) a proper election,
 2) his consecration as a Bishop (before or after his election)
 3) his acceptance of the role of Pope of his own free will.

3.  Infallibility and indefectibility include the divine promise that a true pope will be prevented from making a mistake (erring) against Faith or morals in the name of the Church.

False. There are specific conditions for the Pope to be protected from all error by divine assistance (infallibility). Vatican I Council declared such specific conditions. Namely:

1. He uses his supreme apostolic authority in the exercise of his office as teacher of all Christians

and

2. He defines a doctrine,

and

3. Concerning faith and morals

and

4. to be held by the universal Church.  

If any of these conditions are lacking, infallibility is not engaged and error is possible.

So even if the Pope is teaching regarding faith and morals, he can err when teaching a private theologian and he can also err in official papal docuмents but he cannot err when defining a doctrine for the Universal Church ex-cathedra.

Cantarella has adequately answered each question.  Her problem is that she is absolutely unable to apply her knowledge to the real world.

Membership in the Church is not severed in the case of an occult heretic.  This is the unanimous (virtually) teaching of all the Church's theologians.  It is also possible for a person to hide occult heresy from everyone.  

But in the cases of Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio the issue of occult heresy is not the issue at all since all of them publicly manifested their heresies on a number of occasions.  The manifestations are not secret and can be easily found by anyone who is in good faith.  

Membership in the Church is not severed in the case of an occult heretic.  This is the unanimous (virtually) teaching of all the Church's theologians.  It is also possible for a person to hide occult heresy from everyone.

So here you reject Nado's propositions.

So, only when you feel confident you decide to take me off hide!

No, only if, from time to him, having ignored you for long enough, I feel that I can look at your posts without their being an occasion of sin to me.  As for now, you're going back on Hide.  Take your false propositions up with your fellow sedevacantists.  As I have written before, I have never run into a poster who is so wrong on every issue he posts about, so lacking in knowledge, and yet so confident that he is always right, calling people who call out his obvious error "modernists" for the mere fact of disagreeing with him.  That combinations makes you an occasion of sin to me.  I can take a smart person who's arrogant.  I can take an uneducated / uninformed person who's humble.  But a uneducated/uninformed person who's so over-the-top arrogant, that's beyond what I can take on any regular basis ...

Then, with regard to your posting style, you do nothing but make gratuitous assertions, backed up by NO authority, NO quotes, NO syllogisms, NO arguments whatsoever.  Then after somebody takes the time to write several paragraphs using authority, quotes, syllogisms, arguments to refute your point, your hubris causes you to exclaim that no one had addressed your wonderful arguments (aka gratuitious assertions).  And you have the audacity to accuse people of "running away" and lacking "confidence" in the face of your incredible intellect.  No, people are running away from your insufferable personality.  You really, really need some deep spiritual direction, for you are a very great risk of losing your soul.

Quote

True.

 A heretic Pope may lose his pontificate automatically before God, Who knows his innermost thoughts and actions, but he continues to be Pope before the visible Church until God calls him (by death if necessary) or even perhaps the Church Herself (in the person of another Pope + bishops and cardinals) declares his heresy. Either way, it is not the laity's responsibility.

 If it is true that the conciliar Popes have been heretics and if that is actually a fact, then surely God knows it and it is up to God to depose him, even by death if necessary. We must not doubt God's omnipotence in this respect. Therefore, he may lose the pontificate before God and becomes an illegitimate Pope. But there is a difference between legitimacy and validity. These popes still remain valid authorities of the visible Church until a new Pope will declare their heresy.

 Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Una Sanctam says about the Pope, "The spiritual man judges all things and he himself is judged by no man" (1 Cor 2:15), so when someone affirms today that the conciliar Popes are not Popes, that person implicitly is attributing to himself a power which just do not belong to them.

So where does that leave the average laity who calls himself "A Traditional Catholic", in reference to subjection to this and these last "External Heretical Popes".

Is it a position of , "Damed if you do and Damed if you don t situation? In other words is it like one group (sspx) discerns, "If we think he is teaching Catholic doctrine from the Old School , we obey , if not pass it off , and disobey?.  Please explain ...

I've tried to explain this repeatedly.  Not only the "average laity" but even average priests and average bishops are not competent to decide this matter which can only be decided by an infallible authority sufficient to constitute the dogmatic fact of legitimacy.

We can have doubts and questions; in fact, we MUST have doubts or questions about legitimacy in order to justify the refusal of canonical submission to a pope.  Anything less would be schismatic.

With all do respect , Since this is a "Cantarella topic,  I would like Cantarella to comment on this.   Thank you ...

For Contarella.....

Director said:

Quote:

True.

 A heretic Pope may lose his pontificate automatically before God, Who knows his innermost thoughts and actions, but he continues to be Pope before the visible Church until God calls him (by death if necessary) or even perhaps the Church Herself (in the person of another Pope + bishops and cardinals) declares his heresy. Either way, it is not the laity's responsibility.

 If it is true that the conciliar Popes have been heretics and if that is actually a fact, then surely God knows it and it is up to God to depose him, even by death if necessary. We must not doubt God's omnipotence in this respect. Therefore, he may lose the pontificate before God and becomes an illegitimate Pope. But there is a difference between legitimacy and validity. These popes still remain valid authorities of the visible Church until a new Pope will declare their heresy.

 Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Una Sanctam says about the Pope, "The spiritual man judges all things and he himself is judged by no man" (1 Cor 2:15), so when someone affirms today that the conciliar Popes are not Popes, that person implicitly is attributing to himself a power which just do not belong to them.

 So where does that leave the average laity who calls himself "A Traditional Catholic", in reference to subjection to this and these last "External Heretical Popes".

 Is it a position of , "Damed if you do and Damed if you don t situation? In other words is it like one group (sspx) discerns, "If we think he is teaching Catholic doctrine from the Old School , we obey , if not pass it off , and disobey?.  Please explain ...