Apparently, there is no problem except that, if you understood the original answer to the question, you shouldn't have bothered to make your comments in the first place.

This probable yet not certain opinion refers only to private heresy.

Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions – opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however, over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornly clinging to an error in a matter already defined.

The more probable and respectful opinion, followed by Suarez, Bellarmine and many others, holds that just as God has not till this day ever permitted such a thing to happen, so too he never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic. Still, some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy. They add that should such a case of public papal heresy occur, the pope, either by the very deed itself or at least by a subsequent decision of an ecuмenical council, would by divine law a forfeit his jurisdiction.

Well, here is Van Noort's summary and estimation of the theological status of the varying opinions offered by the Doctors and Saints on this question,

Quote from: Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church by Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.

Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions – opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however, over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornly clinging to an error in a matter already defined.

The more probable and respectful opinion, followed by Suarez, Bellarmine and many others, holds that just as God has not till this day ever permitted such a thing to happen, so too he never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic. Still, some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy. They add that should such a case of public papal heresy occur, the pope, either by the very deed itself or at least by a subsequent decision of an ecuмenical council, would by divine law a forfeit his jurisdiction.

Then you do not know yourself very well, because you go on to write...

Gee, I did not know sedevacantists were comedians too... although this is not very funny...

The burden of proof falls upon sedevacantists such as you to apodictically demonstrate and systematically prove:

(1) precisely how, when and why the occupants of the Johannine-Pauline structures cannot claim to constitute the Ecclesia docens;

(2) precisely how, when and why the occupants of the Johannine-Pauline structures lapsed away from the Catholic and divine faith into formal heresy, properly so-called;

(3) what precisely in the docuмents of the Johannine-Pauline council can be said to constitute the "Œconomia nova" of the modernists, by identifying the heresies and errors thereof and demonstrating what theological label is to designate these propositions (according to the methodology of the eminent theologians whom Holy Mother Church has proposed to us as our teachers and guides in these matters);

(4) they must demonstrate the theological, moral and Canonical ramifications of the deliberate and contumacious adherence of these propositions of the Johannine-Pauline council, both as regards to the Bishops of the time and to the laity and clergy who remain materially adhered to the structures that were brought forth by the Johannine-Pauline council and its modernist proponents;

(5) how exactly are we to contextualize these occurrences to the doctrines of Holy Mother Church as set forth in the Encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the approved theologians of the illustrious schools; and

(6) whether or not does the above necessitates positing the conglomerate of acephalous clerics of the anti-modernist resistance as constituting the Ecclesia docens, and what are the criteria whereby the faithful may readily identify who exactly amongst these same clerics to be ascribed the "hierarchical claim" and how these clerics are to "exercise" such a claim (for example, what prevents one from ascribing such "hierarchical claim" to Bp. Pivarunas, but denying it to Bp. Slupski, or how can the faithful determine who are the charlatans and frauds, such as Ryan "St. Anne" Scott?).

Numbers one through five have been done in piecemeal fashion by individual apologists (whether clerical or lay), or groups thereof, but not in a systematic manner, much less according to the strict scholastic methods of inquiry as seen in how theologians such as Franzelin, Van Noort, Scheeben, Garrigou-Lagrange, Tanquerey, Fenton, &c., present sacred doctrine in their manuals and commentaries. Nor have any of these individuals been trained and educated according to the exigencies of the Sacred Canons, much less according to the standards of intellectual industry and scientific discipline inexorably inherent in the acquisition of a doctorate in sacred theology. Even the most elderly of their number who can claim anything like the former (not the latter) sort of training cannot demand the assent of the faithful anyways, because he lacks the missio and jurisdiction requisite to preach the Catholic faith anyways.

As one sedevacantist has written:

Quote

There is no "complete" published sedevacantist theory except the Guerardian one (and even that has not been published in any language than French, and even in French it was not put into a systematic form and published in a volume, but rather it appeared scattered throughout issues of a journal). Yet non-sedevacantists are attacked for failing to adopt "sedevacantism". This only needs to be stated for its absurdity to be immediately apparent. Can any reasonable and just man condemn another for refusing to accept a theory which, as far as he can see, involves the denial that the Church has a hierarchy? Can anybody really be condemned for not adopting a theory which nobody has even bothered to present in a professional and complete form?

Number six essentially constitutes the central problem of the species of "sedevacantism" that you and others have been propagating, insofar as it makes very problematic the question of the visibility of the Ecclesia docens, the contumacy of certain polemicists who have made novel theories in prejudice to sound theology have made the question impossibly quizzical and labyrinthine.

In order for such polemicists as you to evade the censure of theological error or of being "rash," you must methodically and systematically present the predicament of the Church in the present day according to the teachings and methods of Thomistic philosophy and theology. This is especially true regarding the question of how the faithful are to identify the Ecclesia docens in the present age, which the sedevacantists must satisfactorily answer in order for them to attain to the integrity and consistency that would render their stance credible and tenable.

Whilst you claim that the objections against sedevacantism have been "refuted," you yourself and others of like mind have refuted yourselves in the ecclesiological errors that you may have unknowingly committed in positing and adhering to an "acephalous Church:"

Quote from: Msgr. Charles Journet, in fact, in his work [i

The Church of the Word Incarnate: An Essay of Speculative Theology[/i] (trans. A.H.C. Downes; London: Sheed and Ward, 1954), pg. 411n]

During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. "The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power. Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus―who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church―condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably" (De Comparatione etc., cap. vi., 74). Here are the seventh and the twenty-seventh propositions of John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance: "Peter neither is nor ever was the head of the Holy Catholic Church"; "There is nothing whatsoever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant" (Denz. 633 and 653).

The anti-sedevacantists could make the argument that such polemicists as those in question expose "sedevacantism" as theologically untenable by subscribing to the condemned twenty-seventh proposition of John Hus.

Moreover, the twenty-eighth proposition seems to be blueprint of the so-called "Apostolic Church" that these sedevacantists have devised: "Christ through His true disciples scattered through the world would rule His Church better without such monstrous heads," Christus sine talibus monstruosis capitibus per suos veraces discipulos sparsos per orbem terrarum melius suam Ecclesiam regularet" (Denz., no. 654). And there have been sedevacantists who have lamented the dogmatic definition of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff by the Vatican Council (Session IV, 18 July 1870) in the Constitution Pastor aeternus as the "preparation" for the present day ecclesiastical crisis; ironically echoing the Jansenists and Gallicanists that preceded them.

Ultimately, this renders such sedevacantists' opinion the very "sedevacantism" (to speak anachronistically) that John Hus himself professed, as his twentieth proposition seems to show: "If the Pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it," "Si Papa est malus et praesetim, si est praescitus, tunc ut Iudas apostolus est diaboli, fur, et filius perditionis, et non est caput sanctae militantis Ecclesiae, cuм nec sit membrum eius" (Denz., no. 646). For if these so-called apologists of the sedevacantist camp adopt an ecclesiology that hearkens to the errors of John Hus, there may be a legitimate objection that posits the possibility that "sedevacantism" as interpreted by these polemicists is ultimately a revival of the Hussite heresies.

In making the acephalous and vagrant clergy the Ecclesia docens, or, worse yet, reducing the magisterium of the Church to the endeavors of numberless individuals who must necessarily have recourse to tomes (Denzinger, the Codex, &c.) or to the endeavors of others (such as untrained clerics or charlatans such as the Dimond Brothers), such theorists are devising an "Œconomia nova" of their own, wherein this sort of "sedevacantism" brings forth a new abominatio in desolationem (cf. Dan. cap. xi., 31, cap. xii., 11), or, rather, a new abominatio desolationis (cf. Dan. cap. ix., 27, S. Matt. cap. xxiv., 15, S. Marc. cap. xiii., 14): not only a Church without a Pope, but a Church that has no need of a Pope to have a hierarchy that can claim Apostolic succession formaliter and ordinary jurisdiction. A new and vile form of fideicide that brings about scandal and error in a manner analogous to the Hegelian historicist "dogmatics" of the modernists and their Johannine-Pauline structures.

This is essentially what a "dogmatic sedevacantist" such as you has become.

No: he will ban you simply because you are a nuisance and your novelties are proximate occasions of sins against the faith and charity.

Oh, what have I done!?

I guess your rank arrogance and immature dilettantism compelled me to reply something, my resolution to not post in this sub-forum notwithstanding.

But I am not going to dispute lofty questions of theology with someone who cannot even comprehend and practice the basic teachings of the sacred Gospels and of such works as the treatise De imitatione Christi regarding fraternal charity.

Please be assured of my prayers.

Disputaciones,

You, sir, are completely off your rocker. You are the definition of a dogmatic sedevacantist, extremist, and isolated armchair theologian who doesn't know what Traditional Catholicism really is. If you think Traditional Catholicism is staying home on Sunays regardless of the circuмstances, and condemning everyone else as heretics except yourself, you are sadly mistaken.

And by the way, I am almost certain that you are Hietanen. Your beliefs, , and posting style are all too similar to his.

accusations of "heresy"