I agree with this as well.
Looking back at all the theologians who studied the matter of a bad pope, there are two main questions to discuss:
1. Can the pope ever become a heretic and lose the faith?
2. What happens if the pope becomes a heretic and loses the faith?
Most theologians never moved past question 1 because most could never conceive that the pope could even lose his faith. So, as we are presently dealing with the situation of #2, the number of theological opinions on "what happens now?" is quite small. There's definitely not a consensus on what happens even among the small # of theologians who attempted to answer the question.
Best post in this whole thread.
There is no consensus, even among the HANDFUL of theologians over the centuries who decided to even tackle this question to any degree.
So how can sedevacantists, or R&R, condemn their opponents as non-Catholic, unworthy to be Traditional Catholic, ban-worthy from CathInfo, etc.?
I completely believe in the R&R position. But I firmly hold that no one, not R&R and certainly not Sedevacantists, has a leg to stand on when they try to BIND THE CONSCIENCE OF OTHERS, or unilaterally excommunicate others, in this matter. Especially laymen excommunicating countless Catholics from their armchair.
Now an organization having a unity of doctrine, purpose, position is another matter. You can't have an organization tolerate widely differing (and contradictory) positions on the Crisis. There has to be unity within an organization.
As for variety of opinion or different paths, that's what the different Trad groups ("lifeboats") are for. But you can't have such variety within a single organization. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." That is why Archbishop Lefebvre expelled sedevacantists from his SSPX, etc. But he never said they were non-Catholic. Wrong, imprudent, etc. perhaps -- but he never claimed they were heretics. There's an important distinction to be noted there.