[sedevacantist3]

See my previous post about why Bergoglio is a special case.  He said stuff to the effect that he doesn't care if what he believes is heresy.  In addition, he's been corrected by a group of cardinals and remains pertinacious.

But his predecessor were adamant that their beliefs were Catholic.

So we agree if jewgorglio comes out preaching mohammedism he ipso facto loses his office, you would consider yourself as taking the sedevacant position. My arguement is how can jp 2 praying with the religious leaders of false religions, which are of the devil , not bring you to the same conclusion?

[Pax Vobis]

I see the problem is a theory vs practice problem.  In theory, yes, post-conciliar popes would've been deposed by orthodox cardinals.  In practice, the orthodox cardinals were "retired" by rules put into place by Paul VI and those that remained were greatly outnumbered.  The modernists have ruled the roost for 50 yrs.  In practice, the odds that the church hierarchy will depose a heretic pope is almost non-existent, because the hierarchy themselves are either heretics or very lukewarm in their beliefs, because their Faith was weakened by accepting V2 novelties.  In practice, there's no EARTHLY hope of a deposition.  We can see the fruits of the current Dubia, only signed by 5 officials (3 of which died mysteriously).  

I still maintain that the pope maintains his material office even if he were to proclaim to be a pagan, for the reasons that Francis is not the first pope to support anti-catholic hereises in public.  The evidence against Paul VI and JPII is overwhelming.  

I hold that sedevacantism causes more problems that it solves and that canon law and historical evidence shows that the sede view is a theory which has no practical examples.  This is especially true if the laity/non-hierarchy are proclaiming sedevacantism as a solution.  This is not how the church operates. 

These things will be sorted out when God intervenes.  Until then, it's not our duty, nor have we the liberty, to make ecclesiastical decisions.  It's not our church; it is Christ's.  We are just the laity; we are just sheep.  We must wait for the Good Shepherd to separate the sheep from the goats, which He will eventually do.  

[Cantarella]

Just wanted to note, in light of the latest posts about formal / material heresy, that the Cassisiacuм Thesis does not rely upon determining the heresy (formal, manifest, public, occult, material, etc) of the pope - something that it is very problematic for a variety of reasons -; but simply on his loss of Authority given his public and persistent opposition to the Church timeless teachings. The contradiction is sufficient proof that Divine Assistance is lacking and thus, their supreme power of jurisdiction. This is what Pontifical Authority formally consists of. St. Bellarmine calls it the "form of the pontificate" which is immediately communicated by God Himself. Because the conciliar popes lack the "form" of the Pontificate, they are not formally popes.

Every Catholic can and should conclude that presently there is an absence of Authority in the Church. And that this is the case without appealing to the possible personal heresy of the pope (or bishops). The conclusion is based solely on the contradiction that exists between the teachings of these false prophets and that of the true Church. This alone suffices, as St. Bellarmine teaches, to enable the faithful to protect themselves from being led astray.

In order for our souls not to perish (because this is all what is about, right?) and save ourselves from these false teachers, it is sufficient that we are able to recognize that these teachers no longer have any Authority. According to the Thesis, it is not necessary for the faithful to accuse them of the sin of heresy... "Nor is it necessary for them to affirm that these teachers are definitively and juridically deposed, and as a result no longer hold their sees even materially".

[Pax Vobis]

"Nor is it necessary for them to affirm that these teachers are definitively and juridically deposed, and as a result no longer hold their sees even materially."

Excellent, excellent post, Cantarella!  This affirms that practically speaking, the debate over sedevacantism is just an academic one - in real life, it doesn't matter.  When the pope is not orthodox, then whether you're R&R, sedeprivationist, or sedevacantist - it's all the same result.  The Church is spiritually leaderless and we all suffer the consequences.  And as St Bellarmine points out, our main duty is to protect our Faith, not to figure out who still occupies this or that govt office.

The only reason I continue in these debates is to fight the extremely damaging and divisive error of dogmatic sedevacantism, which is a plague to traditionalism and one of the main impediments to unity.  It also contradict's St Bellarmine's advice above.

[Ladislaus]

Excellent, excellent post, Cantarella!  This affirms that practically speaking, the debate over sedevacantism is just an academic one - in real life, it doesn't matter.  When the pope is not orthodox, then whether you're R&R, sedeprivationist, or sedevacantist - it's all the same result.  The Church is spiritually leaderless and we all suffer the consequences.  And as St Bellarmine points out, our main duty is to protect our Faith, not to figure out who still occupies this or that govt office.

The only reason I continue in these debates is to fight the extremely damaging and divisive error of dogmatic sedevacantism, which is a plague to traditionalism and one of the main impediments to unity.  It also contradict's St Bellarmine's advice above.

Well, the differences do not matter FOR THE MOST PART in the practical order.

Now, with regard to R&R (of the traditional variety), however, they consider themselves bound to submit to and obey any orthodox teachings and legitimate commands of the Pope and the hierarchy.  Consequently, they are supposed to be in the business of ascertaining what these things are.  Most, however, do no such thing and, for all intents and purposes, simply ignore the current hierarchy.

Yet there are monumental theological consequences of the different positions that cannot be ignored.  R&R posit that the Magisterium and Unviersal Discipline of the Church can become so corrupt as to endanger the faith of any who submit to these things, and that individuals are empowered to decide what's what, what to accept and what to reject.  SVs, on the other hand, posit that individuals are empowered to make a determination of papal legitimacy based on their own private judgment.  Both these are incredibly grave errors that undermine the Catholic Magisterium.  That's really the battle taking place here.

[Ladislaus]

The only reason I continue in these debates is to fight the extremely damaging and divisive error of dogmatic sedevacantism, which is a plague to traditionalism and one of the main impediments to unity.  It also contradict's St Bellarmine's advice above.

As for me, I see grave errors on BOTH the SV side AND on the R&R side.  That's why I found Father Chazal's position so incredibly refreshing.  He navigates a theological path through this mess that AVOIDS these grave errors.

[Pax Vobis]

As for me, I see grave errors on BOTH the SV side AND on the R&R side. 

Right, but these errors exist theoretically ONLY IF the person is dogmatic about it.  I say it's perfectly acceptable for any trad (whether cleric or layman) to say 'this is what I believe...but i'm not certain about it."  Or, as is the case with many who don't have the time or learning necessary to study these things, they can simply say "I don't know."  God's not going to hold us accountable because it's not our job to know. 
So as long as a person isn't dogmatic about their view, I see no grave error, just an academic debate.

[Ladislaus]

Right, but these errors exist theoretically ONLY IF the person is dogmatic about it.  I say it's perfectly acceptable for any trad (whether cleric or layman) to say 'this is what I believe...but i'm not certain about it."  Or, as is the case with many who don't have the time or learning necessary to study these things, they can simply say "I don't know."  God's not going to hold us accountable because it's not our job to know.
So as long as a person isn't dogmatic about their view, I see no grave error, just an academic debate.

Well, ideas matter, as Bishop Williamson was so fond of saying.  If people end up embracing non-Catholics views of and attitudes towards the Church and the Magisterium, this does grave harm to their faith.  So I disagree that it's merely academic.  Now, there are certainly merely-academic points in the debate, the question, for instance, about when and how loss of office would occur in a heretical pope situation.  But there are other matters which are integral to the faith that cannot be ignored and brushed aside.

[Ladislaus]

Like the fact that the "magisterium" was seemingly used to "infallibly" teach error to the entire Church in an "ecuмenical council"(were this possible). There's a certain viewpoint that destroys belief in the indefectibility of the Church.

Yes, these are the REAL issues and why this is such a hot debate.  At the end of the day, by comparison, the questions about the legality regarding loss of office (when and how it happens) are academic questions.  THIS is the problem.

[Pax Vobis]

Like the fact that the "magisterium" was seemingly used to "infallibly" teach error to the entire Church in an "ecuмenical council"(were this possible). There's a certain viewpoint that destroys belief in the indefectibility of the Church.

As we are discussing in another thread, there are various levels of the magisterium.  The ORDINARY magisterium is the current hierarchy of rome.  They are not infallible unless they 1) define something OFFICIALLY per V1's rules or they agree with the UNIVERSAL magisterium.

The UNIVERSAL magisterium (or PERPETUAL, or 'ORDINARY and UNIVERSAL' - theologians give it multiple names) is what every hierarchy throughout history has consistently taught for 2,000 years.

V2 did not dogmatically define or clarify any doctrine.  Therefore its teachings are just ORDINARY (i.e. fallible teachings of the 'current churchmen' in rome) and not UNIVERSAL (i.e. they did not agree with "what has always been taught").  In fact, the most erroneous of V2's statements directly contradict previous doctrine and anathemas.  So, we know they have no authority in their decrees but are simply fallible.  What is the "nail in the coffin" is that NO ONE from the V2 hierarchy has EVER SAID that V2 is binding under pain of sin.  They use terms like 'religious assent' but never 'certainty of faith'.  Therefore, these statements are NOT binding, not certain and can be ignored for the novelties they are.  Benedict has even told us that we must interpret questionable passages 'in the light of tradition' which tells us EVEN MORE that such passages are not specific enough to be binding in any way.

[Clemens Maria]

Yet there are monumental theological consequences of the different positions that cannot be ignored.  R&R posit that the Magisterium and Unviersal Discipline of the Church can become so corrupt as to endanger the faith of any who submit to these things, and that individuals are empowered to decide what's what, what to accept and what to reject.  SVs, on the other hand, posit that individuals are empowered to make a determination of papal legitimacy based on their own private judgment.  Both these are incredibly grave errors that undermine the Catholic Magisterium.  That's really the battle taking place here.

I don't think the bolded part is accurate.  The only Catholics I know of who could be accurately described that way are home-aloners.  i.e. people who think there are no Catholic clergy who are authorized to provide the sacraments and instruct the faithful.  Everyone else is following the lead of Catholic clergy.  So in effect they still possess the formal motive of faith which by your own admission is submission to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (or at least that part of the hierarchy which they believe to be Catholic).  In theory this would mean that in the event that a Catholic pope is elected, they would willingly subject themselves to his rule.  That isn't to say that there is no possibility of them being wrong about who is or isn't the pope or who is or isn't a member of the Catholic Church's hierarchy.  It just means that they have an intention to remain within the Catholic Church and be subject to the legitimate successors of the Apostles.  The R&R position on the other hand, claims to be subject to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church but then also posits that it is possible to be a subject of an authority which they do not obey and which they believe they have authority to overrule in matters concerning faith and morals.  That being said, they are obedient to those Catholic clergymen who they believe to be Catholic (e.g. SSPX priests and bishops).  So the private judgement accusation really doesn't apply to anyone but the home-aloners.  Every other Catholic is being obedient to those clergy who they believe to be the true Catholic clergy.

[Pax Vobis]

Strictly speaking, no trad priest or Bishop is part of the clergy because they have no jurisdiction.  The clergy would be those who have legitimate authority over laymen (i.e. priests and bishops of each laymen's diocese and cardinals and other authorities in Rome).

No trad can said to be "following" the "clergy" because 1) they don't owe any obedience to any trad cleric and they can switch trad groups at will and 2) no trad cleric has any authority to demand obedience.  

So, yes, you can say that sede laymen do judge the pope "individually" even if they adopt the "teachings" of their "trad clergy" because they aren't required to and trad priests aren't the clergy.

[Clemens Maria]

Strictly speaking, no trad priest or Bishop is part of the clergy because they have no jurisdiction.  The clergy would be those who have legitimate authority over laymen (i.e. priests and bishops of each laymen's diocese and cardinals and other authorities in Rome).

No trad can said to be "following" the "clergy" because 1) they don't owe any obedience to any trad cleric and they can switch trad groups at will and 2) no trad cleric has any authority to demand obedience.  

In the trad word, everyone is "on his own" even if they form a group because membership in the group is voluntary.  So, yes, you can say that sede laymen do judge the pope "individually" even if they adopt the "teachings" of their "trad clergy" because they aren't required to and trad priests aren't the clergy.

That is incorrect.  The hierarchy consists of all those men who have legitimately been received into the clerical state and remain so.  Until Paul VI there was not any confusion about when a man entered the clerical state.  He entered the clerical state when he received first tonsure.  If you look at pre-V2 theology manuals it will become clear that all clerics are members of the hierarchy.  Some traditionalists get it wrong and believe that only clerics with ordinary jurisdiction are members of the hierarchy but that is wrong.  All clerics in good standing are members of the hierarchy.  They leave the clerical state only when they die or when they are excommunicated or otherwise leave the membership of the Catholic Church.  Also, while few if any traditional Catholic clerics claim jurisdiction, they certainly do enforce discipline upon those faithful who receive sacraments from them.  So in effect the faithful are following the clergy.  It's ironic that according to you, "switching trad groups" constitutes evidence that they do not follow the clergy given that the very same problem is far more prevalent in the Conciliar church where people regularly go "shopping" for a parish or priest who fits their desires.  It is the lack of a pope who is the unifying principle of the Catholic Church which is responsible for the parish shopping activities of those who wish to remain Catholic.  I will grant you that some people are likely to be guilty at some level of private judgment, but I don't think it is a serious problem.  The vast majority of traditional Catholics are following the lead of Catholic clergy.

[sedevacantist3]

Right, but these errors exist theoretically ONLY IF the person is dogmatic about it.  I say it's perfectly acceptable for any trad (whether cleric or layman) to say 'this is what I believe...but i'm not certain about it."  Or, as is the case with many who don't have the time or learning necessary to study these things, they can simply say "I don't know."  God's not going to hold us accountable because it's not our job to know.
So as long as a person isn't dogmatic about their view, I see no grave error, just an academic debate.

My opinion is that the sedevacant position is the only one that makes sense. I am certain about it.  If you take a different stance I don’t believe your salvation is at risk.  I attend an sspx mass for now as it’s my only option and attend a resistance mass once a month. I do find it odd how some trad priests are so vehemently anti sede

[Pax Vobis]

My opinion is that the sedevacant position is the only one that makes sense. I am certain about it.  If you take a different stance I don’t believe your salvation is at risk.

Thank you for not being dogmatic about this topic and for not putting a 'line in the sand' where there need be none.