Dom Gueranger, in his Liturgical Year for the Fourth Sunday After Easter (Today):

The novus ordo 'hierarchy' is schismatic. It neither holds, teaches, or professes the Catholic Faith, nor does it minister the Divinely instituted Sacraments of the Church.

It amounts to a man made religion with concomitant artificial 'rites.'

It claims to be the Catholic Church, and it occupies, as in a siege, the structures of the visible Church. But it refuses submission to Peter by refusing submission to Christ, to Divine Revelation, and to Sacred Tradition.

Now it is absolutely impossible for Catholics, as individuals and as a corporate body or bodies, to be in supernatural union with the novus ordo hierarchy because it does not belong to the supernatural order.

Wherefore, in placing itself under submission to the novus ordo hierarchy, Menzingen makes SSPXBrand a sect.

Quote from: Clemens Maria

The big problem with trying to be agnostic with regard to the SV vs. R&R approach (or I guess in your case, Cantate, you would be agnostic only about SV) is that it limits your response.  If you are SV you should believe that the next pope will come from the ranks of traditional clergy.  Whereas, if you are R&R you have to believe that the next Catholic pope will come from the Conciliar Sect.  This is somewhat of an oversimplification but it is a very important difference.  There will be another Catholic Pope.  The only question is how will we get one?  Will we wait for the Conciliar Sect to produce one or will we work to elect a traditional bishop?  One's position will dictate the direction of one's efforts to resolve the crisis.

You see, posts like this bolster the assertion (made by myself and Sean Johnson, among others) that Conclavist Sedevacantists are the truest specimen of SVs. They are the most consistent.

If you're not "waiting and seeing" like the rest of us, then you are a conclavist. And conclavists don't have a great track record; they end up with results like Pope Michael -- rightly ridiculed by the whole world.

Agreed.  However, that is not a good argument against trying to elect a pope.

This OP is a bit of a misnomer and fails to see the whole point.

Why isn't Molinism triumphant against Thomism? Just because one side can still have a legitimate opinion (i.e. they can have their opinion with a guarantee that they will not be heretics if they hold the opinion). This is similar to the day before Vatican I solemnly defined the truth's about the Infallibility of the Papacy, sure in the other side of the spectrum there were many intelligent people who thought "they were right." However, we know that they were absolutely wrong without a question of a doubt, this is kind of the whole point of having St. Peter confirm the sheep. There are situations where even the force and power of reason is not enough to make intellects BOW DOWN (i.e. under pain of mortal sin you must assent in your intellect), not because of the lack of force in the arguments shown but as of RIGHT now the whole SV or R&R camp have not been definitely settled, it is that simple.

I can guarantee you this is not because a lack of force in our arguments. We are absolutely correct in our conclusions, but just consider that even to this day one can be able to be a Catholic and hold some of the tenets of Molinism. Now tell me which theologian out there is a Molinist with regards to any topic, free will, predestination etc... It has never had any official approval of hte Church, no serious saint has ever taken it seriously etc... No one cares about Molinism that simple, because it is not a doctrine of the Church. We don't see in the 18th, 19th or 20th century a "rise in Molinism." NO theologians took it seriously, you can take that to the bank, JUST because an idea is not condemned does not mean it is necessarily true. Thomism is DE FACTO the winner, period. There are certain reasons why His Holiness during that time decided to close the debate on a certain topic, it is not for us to decide the why or how this happened. This is where Catholic obedience takes its place and assents, because this is truly true obedience that is demanded of us.

So you can go and think that because you have one real sole defender "in your position" such as Suarez (the only consistent one that does not contradict himself after every sentence). Suarez is famous for differing with St. Thomas on MANY many topics, this is why he is not as good. If the Popes tell you, "ite ad Thoma" repeatedly for 9 centuries then there is by necessity something special in the Thomist method of exegesis. If you read Cajetan, he completely self-refutes himself in the Pope heretic thesis, same goes with John of St. Thomas etc... In the near future when I finally get some time (so busy at the moment) I will post precisely what I mean. So yes, I will readily admit you are not a heretic for holding to the thesis that a pope can be a heretic and still hold his office. Is it reasonable? Logical? Absolutely no, but for the time being you can still get away with that silly opinion that makes absolutely no sense. Are we absolutely for sure correct in our thesis? Yes, we are. We stand by the doctrine of the Church, our conclusions are as certain as there is a God in heaven. Just because certain intellects are incapable of understanding it for whatever reason (pre-conceived notions or bias or lack of education) it does not make it any less true. Just look at how many smart individuals have erred when we look at the history of the Church, the Conciliarist heresy was condemned and there was many pious abbots, superior generals, cardinals, bishops who held to this particular heresy. At the end of the day this question will be settled in God's good time, in the meanwhile we just do our best to ensure that we do our part. We have already been convicted of our position, the debate is over. There used to be some interesting discussions in the past, but we have had a whole paradigm shift from anti B XVI to Mr. Bergoglio. Many of the strongest points are no longer true, the whole conversation has completely changed. It is in your face anti-Catholicism...
_______________________
Now not to derail the thread, but I believe the topic is most relevant to this specific question of why certain tenets or ideas just "take a life of their own." You see the same attitudes, and thinking being repeated over and over by different individuals. So that we don't keep having these wicked hydra heads popping out of no where, lets get to the root of the problem.

A recent poster "Cantarella" made one of the most ridiculous statements ever about St. Pius X being an anti-pope or Pius XII, assuming that if they were right then they are heretics (if our position is correct), or if they were wrong then we are wrong about SV'ism: "Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904). As it has been explained AD nauseam there are over 300 different types of excommunications in canon law, over 95% of them are medicinal in nature. So there your cleverness only showed how flawed your understanding of the specific topic at hand is. Divine law supercedes ecclesiastical law, so no heretics are not ever going to be "validly" elected to the Pontiicate, AS ALL theologians teach that you need be a Catholic to even be a valid elector. Read that Father Cekada article I linked, it is one of his personal best so far on the topic. When we mean unanimous on this specific topic, it is truly 100% unanimous no canon lawyer has ever argued to the contrary (one that has not been excommunicated or censured).

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945). " Have the humility and simply admit when you are wrong, many of us have been wrong before and sometimes it takes a long time to realize it, but when that moment ever does happen we should do our best to remedy the damage done. If it is even possible, the bad thing about the internet once something is posted, its out there pretty much for eternity. It is also very easy to just write anything, about everything. Before some sort of thought had to be put into writing a book, getting it published or even worse writing it by hand and doing copies of that by hand etc... It took hard genuine effort, and this helped to give more mature thoughts on different topics rather then off the cuff remarks and daily useless thoughts. Give an honest effort to write your thoughts that have matured a bit more in your head. If it takes you 3 days to make a daily post so be it, you will see how much more you will avoid common errors and pitfalls. This is also why I like Bellarmine Forums, even though it is not as active it tends to have higher quality stuff because people there take some thought into what they write.

Now I love it when individuals are so clever as to come up with questions THAT NO ONE ELSE has ever thought of. This is what I call supreme stupidity, and I hate to be so frank, but some people should really be told that some questions really are stupid. Its not because no one else ever thought of your clever insight, its because you are completely MISREADING like you always will whatever it is you read. No, your "question is not interesting in the least." It just shows how pride completely blinds you, and you fail to see the most basic answer is in front of you. Now someone can sincerely ask a question without really knowing the answer and they are genuinely curious about finding the truth. What I see is rather "creative" minds at work just trying to find anything despite it making no sense whatsoever. What is really the worst thing, is that it is always the SAME method of exegesis that does this. It is ALWAYS and in EVERY case, the same semi-protestant Sola Denzingerites that are so "clever" that they always find out everything by themselves, and how "no one" has been so clever as them to see this amazing awe inspiring discovery. Just look at how sometimes MHFM always tries to point out how it "was they" who first said this or that, "no one else" has pointed out their super clever awe struck deep insights. Our Blessed Lord will respond to your wicked perverted self-asborbed minds, "You have received your reward." These are the same individuals that will argue AD NAUSEAM that EVERYONE who believes in a licit BOD/BOB opinion are a bunch of heretics. Even supposing that you are correct, we have been GUARANTEED in previous centuries that our opinion at the very least is a Catholic one at worst, and at best the correct one. Sure there have been many recent innovations that are heretical with respect to that camp, but these are finer distinctions that the laity should simply stay away from. Just like certain topics tend to make heretics of smart individuals like predestination, free will etc... Take the Jansenist for example who stubbornly clinged to Augustines doctrine on Free Will against that of the Church.

If you happen to fall guilty of what I am saying, then start re-examining your life. You live in a dangerous mindset, while not wholly protestant you arrogate to yourself a semi-infallibility and rob the Church of her authoritative magisterium. Don't be a genius and think so hard, simply read and submit. Chances are if your clever thoughts have not been speculated, even in speculative theology then there are some serious problems. Chances are 99.9999999999999999% it will mean that you are misreading the text.

+Pax vobis+