[Ladislaus]

Bp. Guérard ("Guérard des Lauriers" is a family name; his given name was Michel-Louis) did not actually believe that a purely material pope could make valid ecclesiastical appointments.

I've read passages of his which state the contrary.  Regardless, I myself do believe that material possession of the See ... which comes from the Church's designation, in turn allows him to designated others to fill those positions.  So, for instance, material Popes JP2 and B16 appointed most of the Cardinals who subsequently elected (designated) Bergoglio as pope.  If Bergoglio were to convert, then Bergoglio would resume formal exercise of the papacy.  So those Cardinals must have been legitimately appointed by a material pope.  Similarly, the material pope could designate bishops.  Those bishops, by virtue of the designation, would enjoy jurisdiction to the extent that they themselves did not have impediments to formally exercising authority (i.e. if they happen not to be heretics themselves).  This most certainly avoids the Ecclesiavacantist heresy that most sedevacantists fall into.  But most sedevacantists who have aligned with the sedeprivationist bishops have tried to morph sedeprivationism into nothing more than sedevacantism.  So, for instance, +Sanborn became a sedeprivationist (after having rejected the notion) when he was told that +McKenna (who received his orders from +des Laurier under the same conditions) wouldn't consecrate him unless he became sedeprivationist.  He thereafter adopted sedeprivationism but simply tried to spin it as nothing more than sedevacantism, which it is not.

[Ladislaus]

Lastdays,

You haven't actually refuted anything that Merry has written. You just repeat the same old tired anarchist sede stuff, hoping that it will convince the non-sedes. It cannot convince us, because what you have written does not show that you the authority to judge that the Seat of Peter is vacant.

Honestly, I don't care that you or any of the R&R happen to consider Bergoglio to be a material pope.  But don't tell me that he's formally a pope who has not lost his ability to formally exercise his authority, or I'm going to call you out as a schismatic and a heretic.  You would thereby claim that the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline have defected.  This isn't primarily about the identity of the pope, but about the nature of the Church and the Magisterium ... and the overall indefectibility of the Church.  Similarly, the rabid sedevacantists need to stop deposing everyone for heresy, making themselves the pope's judge.  BOTH of these positions completely destroy the Magisterium.  In the one case, the Magisterium can be sifted by Joe Sixpack in the pew, whereas in the other case the entire Magisterium can be pitched wholesale by a different Joe Sixpack.  Neither one of these positions is Catholic.

I accept Father Chazal's position as the most Catholic of them all.  But straight R&R which has Catholics sifting the papal Magisterium is abhorrent.  Straight sedevacantism, especially of the dogmatic variety, is equally abhorrent.

[Merry]

Canon 1556: Prima sedes a nemine judicatur - "The first chair is judged by no one."

So what does this mean?  It cannot be said "for nothing."  It must mean something.

[Cantarella]

I think the totalists would argue that heretics don't have the correct "matter" either.  If the Cardinals elected a woman, then she still wouldn't be materially pope.  She is not a man and therefore does not have proper matter.  Likewise, a non-Catholic man does not have proper matter. I think the key here for material/formalists is that the man was not "elected" per se, but "designated".  

ETA: Cantarella definitely correct me if my understanding is wrong about election vs designation....I have read the Thesis and tried to make sense of it, but I know my understanding is shaky.

I believe that your understanding is accurate in the highlighted part but I do not see the distinction between election and designation as far as the legitimacy of the papal conclave is concerned. The thesis does seem to recognize that a conclave was duly and legally convoked and that there was an acceptance of the election. It is only after, (because of the impediment of heresy or the intention to promulgate error) that the elected loses jurisdiction and ceases to be true pope.

According to the thesis, arguing from the basis of Ex cuм Apostolatus, (that the election itself is null because the man elected was already a heretic prior to the conclave), presents a couple of difficulties: First, that the constitution has been indeed abrogated (as far as Ecclesiastical Law, although the dogmatic principles of Divine Law still remain) and second and more importantly, that the prior formal heresy would have to be proved by the competent authority which has not yet happened. Although the heresy of the conciliar popes have been public with regard to fact, it has not been made public with regard to imputability because it has not been legally condemned by any legal procedure.  

[Cantarella]

I've read passages of his which state the contrary.  Regardless, I myself do believe that material possession of the See ... which comes from the Church's designation, in turn allows him to designated others to fill those positions.  So, for instance, material Popes JP2 and B16 appointed most of the Cardinals who subsequently elected (designated) Bergoglio as pope.  If Bergoglio were to convert, then Bergoglio would resume formal exercise of the papacy.  So those Cardinals must have been legitimately appointed by a material pope.  Similarly, the material pope could designate bishops.  Those bishops, by virtue of the designation, would enjoy jurisdiction to the extent that they themselves did not have impediments to formally exercising authority (i.e. if they happen not to be heretics themselves).  This most certainly avoids the Ecclesiavacantist heresy that most sedevacantists fall into.

This is my understanding as well. 

[Cantarella]

Can you explain where #3 is derived from in Church teaching? I've never heard of "Plentitude of power" at all anywhere in Church teaching.

That's doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. But I'd like to know where in Church teaching it comes from specifically.

# 3 is derived from the teaching that Divine Assistance is promised to the successors of St. Peter. It is described in Vatican I Decree Pastor Aeternus:

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."[60]

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.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm

[Cantarella]

A Catholic could've said the same thing in 1854 about the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus by Pius IX where he defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. You could say that this is a contradiction to what has been said in the past therefore Pius IX can't be a true pope.
 
As I said, it becomes chaotic.

It could be argued that whereas the dogma of the Immaculate Conception had never been condemned before 1854; the teaching of Religious Liberty, for instance, had been indeed before Vatican II. Again, the Catholic Principle of Non- Contradiction.

Was Pope Pius VI assisted by the Holy Ghost when he explicitly condemned the anti-Catholic principle of Religious Liberty as a "monstrous right", "an imaginary dream" in 1791? or Was Paul VI instead, who enjoyed Divine Assistance while promulgating Dignitatis Humanae in 1965?

Which of the two had the protection of the Holy Ghost? Which of the two is right? they both cannot be right.

[Meg]

Honestly, I don't care that you or any of the R&R happen to consider Bergoglio to be a material pope.  But don't tell me that he's formally a pope who has not lost his ability to formally exercise his authority, or I'm going to call you out as a schismatic and a heretic.  

Yeah, right, I'm a schismatic and heretic because I don't accept your pet interpretations regarding material vs. formal. I don't care about material vs. formal. That's your thing, and it's a big deal to you, but don't expect others to think it's a big deal. It's not, except in your mind.

The Pope is the Pope. Deal with it. 

[Meg]

# 3 is derived from the teaching that Divine Assistance is promised to the successors of St. Peter. It is described in Vatican I Decree Pastor Aeternus:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm

So where did that "plentitude of power" saying come from that you used? It's not in the Vl quote you provided. Is it a made-up saying, from a sedevacantist, or something like that?

[Cantarella]

So where did that "plentitude of power" saying come from that you used? It's not in the Vl quote you provided. Is it a made-up saying, from a sedevacantist, or something like that?

It is not "plentitude"; it is plenitude and it means just that: the full power communicated to the pope immediately by God. Given that you are taking such an issue, not even with the notion, but with the wording itself, I invite you to read Fr. Bernard Lucien of the Mater Boni Consilii Institute on the explanation of the Cassiciacuм Thesis. It may further resolve your questions. 

[Stubborn]

Well, unfortunately you are the other side of the coin to Merry. Unlike Merry you don't reject a pope's teaching, laws etc. Instead you reject those by concluding he must not be a true pope.

Both positions are untenable and chaotic.

The word you are looking for, which leads to being chaotic, is the word "anarchy".

Sedevacantism is inherently anarchistic, "Sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism." -Fr. Wathen

[Stubborn]

And sifting the Magisterium isn't?

Give an example, or 10 examples, what is "sifting the Magisterium"? I'm off to Mass so I'll check back later.

[2Vermont]

Well, unfortunately you are the other side of the coin to Merry. Unlike Merry you don't reject a pope's teaching, laws etc. Instead you reject those by concluding he must not be a true pope.

Both positions are untenable and chaotic.

I'm confused...what is your position on the Crisis then?  Do you accept Vatican II and the conciliar popes?

[2Vermont]

I believe that your understanding is accurate in the highlighted part but I do not see the distinction between election and designation as far as the legitimacy of the papal conclave is concerned. The thesis does seem to recognize that a conclave was duly and legally convoked and that there was an acceptance of the election. It is only after, (because of the impediment of heresy or the intention to promulgate error) that the elected loses jurisdiction and ceases to be true pope.

According to the thesis, arguing from the basis of Ex cuм Apostolatus, (that the election itself is null because the man elected was already a heretic prior to the conclave), presents a couple of difficulties: First, that the constitution has been indeed abrogated (as far as Ecclesiastical Law, although the dogmatic principles of Divine Law still remain) and second and more importantly, that the prior formal heresy would have to be proved by the competent authority which has not yet happened. Although the heresy of the conciliar popes have been public with regard to fact, it has not been made public with regard to imputability because it has not been legally condemned by any legal procedure.  

Thanks Cantarella.  
As for the bolded:  For at least Francis, his pre-election heresy was public (there is ample evidence of it) and also not condemned by any legal procedure (just as his post-election heresy).  How is this different than his post-election heresy?  Wouldn't those who follow the CT have to at least say that his election was also illegitimate based on the principles they use post-election?  In order to be consistent? 

[Meg]

That is right, Vermont! He is no formally Pope because he does not have Divine Assistance, therefore has no jurisdiction. He is lacking the third of these elements for a legitimate pontificate:

1. Election
2. Acceptance of the election
3. Plenitude of power (Divine Assistance)


St. Bellarmine refers to the first and third of these elements here. If you notice, he also clearly makes the distinction between matter / form:

The thesis argues that the conciliar popes lack the "form" of the Pontificate, that is, the determining and formal element which makes the Pope to be such, so he is not formally the Pope.

Please forgive my spelling mistake, Canterella. It was not intentional. 

So the "plenitude  of power" that you list above, and believe that the pope has to have in order to have a legitimate pontificate, is in reality a made-up term by a sedeprivationist. I don't see that St. Bellarmine actually used that terminology. "Plenitude of power" doesn't even sound Catholic. It sounds like a term a charismatic would use, or someone like that.