http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/

New ParadigmIV. How the Principle Changes the Discussion.

A. Clearing the Clutter. Appealing to the foregoing principle clears the clutter of irrelevant objections that the R&R camp raises against the loss of office principle. (For an idea of how many there are, see my article Sedevacantism and Mr. Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope — and yes, Mr. Ferrara is another lawyer…) No longer will one have to answer for the nth time R&R arguments like:

    The First See is judged by no one. (Response: “As a heretic, Bergoglio never truly obtained ‘the First See,’ so no one is ‘judging’ it.”)

    You need a Council to judge that a pope has fallen into heresy. (“As a heretic, Bergoglio was never pope in the first place.”)

    Due process rules dictate that a pope be given an opportunity to retract. (“As a heretic, Bergoglio was never pope in the first place.”)

    Cardinals must give a pope two canonical warnings before he can lose office. (“As a heretic, Bergoglio was never pope in the first place.”)

    Suarez and Cajetan support the idea that a pope does not lose his office until the Church somehow issues a judgement that he has. (“As a heretic, he never truly obtained the office in the first place.”)

    Honorius, John XXII and other popes “fell into heresy,” but were not considered to have lost their office. (“Even assuming they ‘fell into heresy,’ unlike Bergoglio, they were not heretics when elected.”)

    Pius XII’s conclave legislation allows a person to be validly elected pope even if he incurred excommunication or another impediment “of ecclesiastical law.”  (“Heresy is not an impediment of ecclesiastical law but of divine law.”)

Poof! In the face of the principle laid down in the foregoing section, all these spurious objections disappear.

I also posted a thread about this quidlibet.  I think it is big news.  I have argued that the real brains of SV know that trads cannot depose a pope/argue that he simple falls from the chair.  

Regardless, it is easy to attack SV from this angle as well.  

For starters: if Pius XII was a true pope until his death, then why don't SV's obey his liturgical laws?  SV disobedience to a "true pope" entail hypocrisy/schism/heresy(material of course).

It is a point of debate between SV's in regards to "necessity" "epikia" what the lawgiver would have done were he to see what a law in 1958 would lead to in 2014.  We all agree the disciplinary laws must be obeyed while he is alive and while the circuмstances have not changed.  Without a Pope for this long we debate whether this or that can be done when considering such a long interregnum and what the Bugnini changes under his Pontificate ultimately led to.  

We don't deny that the liturgical laws authorized and in force while he was alive in 1958 are laws that a valid Pope could enforce.

We deny that the liturgy and sacraments and council enforced in 1969 could be enforced by a valid Pope.  That is the key distinction.  

Can a valid Pope authorize what Pius XII authorized?  Yes.


Can a valid Pope authorize what Paul 6 authorized?  No.