Agreed.
I am not "doing away with anything", I am arguing that there are other possibilities:

Papal elections without the cardinals? – St Robert Bellarmine

There *are* no other possibilities while there are cardinals. None. Impossible.

 As bad as they are, they are the cardinals. REMEMBER, the hierarchical structure of the Church is the only thing that remains unchanged of the Catholic Church. Do away with that for any reason whatsoever and you will have taken it upon yourself to destroy the only thing remaining of the true Church.

The traditional structure remains in theory and can be reclaimed if God should so choose to make happen.

God already made it happen because what He made happen still remains in reality, not in theory. It is only in (sede) theory that it does not remain.

Answers to the Crisis must coalesce with the entirety of the Church's teaching. Indefectibility is not intrinsically tied to the college of cardinals and/or having a pope every minute of the day. IMO twisting papal infallibility to support indefectibility is extremely problematic and perilous to faith. Though no single answer, or any human wisdom can solve the mystery of these times.

Do you believe that the Antichrist, when he comes, could be a valid pope?

It has to do directly with the law of papal elections, which is an act of the Church's Administration, not the Church's indefectibility or infallibility. 

I have no idea who the anti-Christ will be, I don't plan on being on this side of the turf when he comes, at least that's my hope.

Can the Vicar of Christ be a "beast of the apocalypse", or the Antichrist himself?

*deleted*

Galatians 1:8

Douay-Rheims Bible

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Fascinating...So, you do believe a legitimate pope can be antichrist! To say that someone is "anti-Catholic" is the equivalent of saying they are antichrist. You believe that the pope can be antichrist - perhaps not THE Antichrist, but AN antichrist. Christ and the pope make One Head of the Church not two and you say the Head can be both Christ and antichrist You are saying they can be Catholic & anticatholic at the same time 2+2=5/A=NOT A.

Christ is the head of the Church, Christ and the Church are one. As Christ's vicar, the pope is only second in command, But Christ and the pope are not one. Christ and the Church are one, the pope is not the Church, hence Christ and the pope are two, not one. The two make one head only when the pope speaks ex cathedra.

Beyond that, the pope is not impeccable, there is not a single sin that the pope cannot commit, here we are talking about the sin of heresy that the pope is not immune to committing - except when he speaks ex cathedra.

In order to meet your objective, you are making the pope both impeccable and the Church, then, by Divine design, because he is neither, you are using his lack thereof against various laws and teachings of the Church, the law of papal elections and the dogma of papal infallibility to name only two - not good.

So, what if the cardinals have elected popes for 1000 years? How were they elected for the first 1000 years before that? You already admitted that papal elections via the college of cardinals is not de fide. All that is necessary is the Church must have a way to elect a pope - even lay people could do this if that is what the situation required. The men you say are cardinals are all heretics and were incapable of assuming any office whatsoever. Antichrist cannot rule over Christ. Heretics cannot spiritually rule over the faithful. This was all clearly referenced above under the "Delict of Heresy", cuм Ex, etc. This makes me right and you wrong.

Here what you are doing is destroying the established traditions and laws on papal elections of the past 1000 years which were established by successive popes. Do you believe these popes were popes? Do you believe these popes lacked the authority and that lay people and priests can just ignore them in a crisis?

The thing is, perhaps you don't even realize it, but the only reason you do this is for no other reason than to maintain your opinion that  popes cannot be popes when they are heretics. You do not realize that in so doing, you are following the example  of what conciliar popes have done, namely, blatant disregard of established traditions and laws in order to meet their objective. While there may be two different objectives involved, the results would be the same - another new church.

I will ask some questions:

1) Do you believe that being a member of the Church is the same thing as belonging to the Body of the Church?

2) Do you believe that someone being "severed from the Body of the Church" results in them being "outside the Church"?

1) Yes, of course.
2) Yes and no, allow me to explain.
We all know what PPXII said, we also know that nobody outside of the Church can receive the sacraments. Penitent Catholics who have fallen into the sins of heresy, apostacy or schism, in virtue of their ability to receive the sacraments of penance and extreme unction, proves that they are still members, not outside of the Church. We cannot simply ignore this truth like you are wont to ignore the laws of papal elections as a means to meet your objective.

In the Church's infinite wisdom, Trent's catechism likens these sinners to deserters from the army, which is the best possible comparison/example I think is possible to explain that while 1) yes, they've severed themselves from the Church, 2), it's not the other way around - which is how that sentence is typically misunderstood.

Both extremes are in error, but the one where the Church's Magisterium can defect is not Catholic and is heretical.  R&R hide behind +Lefebvre, but +Lefebvre did not in fact hold this.

And yet Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX was never, ever any brand of sedevacantist, even when the Archbishop was alive. You have not been truthful about what +ABL believed, and I have shown this in the past. I respect your opinions on several subjects other than sedevacantism, but you are wrong about this issue. 

There are many traditional Catholics who do not, and have not ever held to your opinions on the subject. It's the same with the opinion of Johannes. 

Agreed the pope is not "impeccable". Do you imagine that I think the pope is literally Christ Incarnate in His divine & human natures? The pope is just a man and can suffer all the weaknesses of other men, only his "faith fails not".

Well if he is not impeccable, then how do you explain the solemn teaching that Christ and the pope are one head? Consider as I just said above, "The two make one head only when the pope speaks ex cathedra." This is the only time for certain the solemn teaching is referring to, i.e. that "his faith fail not" and "Christ and the pope constitute one head."

If it did - God would allow the heretic to manifest to you publicly that he who you thought was pope was no longer pope (or never was to begin with).
You keep stating that I am destroying something, the living college of cardinals was already destroyed back in the 1960s. The concept remains and no one can destroy that. God may choose to restore it - I don't have a read on His plans. What you are doing here is elevating an administrative process to the level of the Divine constitution of the Church, but Christ made no cardinals and for the first 1000 yrs neither did the Church. You must not conflate ecclesiastical laws with Divine laws some are some are not. The college of cardinals is not of Divine Law.

You have no other choice but to destroy the legal structure of the Church in order to claim papal elections are invalid. There is no other possible way to do it, regardless of how you do it, it must be done - even if that means it was done decades before you were born.

See, before anything else and out of necessity, your starting point is with an empty Chair. You must start with and maintain this starting point from start to finish in order to arrive back at your conclusion, which is your starting point.

After starting there, you must work it all backwards, misunderstanding the teachings/messages  - according to your starting point. When one idea doesn't work, you use the Church's laws and teachings against Herself...."The pope was never elected because the college of cardinals are heretics = not members / not cardinals = invalid election(s). This effectively destroys the college of cardinals, via nullification of all the cardinals, which, in your mind, validates your opinion and raises it to at least a level of certainty, if not doctrine. 

True popes never "lack authority" but rather have supreme authority over the whole Church - you are the one who is "ignoring" your "pope". It is truly unbelievable that you are audacious enough not to recognize your resistance to him! By you "ignoring" Francis and making the remote magisterium according to your own interpretation - your living rule of faith - instead obeying and following the man who you say is the pope your "Holy Father" (who you also believe is the "Vicar of Christ" while simultaneously being an antichrist)! Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

Read my signature. It should clear up the false dilemma you've invented for me - again - in order for you to maintain your starting point.

What you are doing is replacing "True Obedience" with "Blind Obedience." My living rule of faith is dogma, not a heretic or any fallible person.

There already is a "new church", and you belong to it by associating yourself with Francis as the head of the church that you profess to belong to. He cannot both be the head of a new church and the Catholic Church.

If lay people and priests ever do as you suggest and elect their own pope, they will have created another new church. Again, there is no possible way around this. And yes, the pope can be and actually is head of two Churches.In one of his talks, Fr. Hesse explains this very simply. I will post it if I come across it if this thread is still active at that time.

As for the rest of your post, you have been very clearly explained, referencing Trent's catechism, what is meant by sins severing one from the body of the Church, you do not accept it - because you cannot. If you did, it would destroy your starting point.

You also cannot accept that those outside of the Church cannot make use of the Church's Sacraments, but penitent Catholics who are guilty of the sins of heresy, schism and apostacy can make use of the sacraments of penance and extreme unction. This is a big one tho, so it is understandable that there is no possible way you could ever accept this truth as it destroys your whole opinion, right down to your starting point.           

We see in this debate a false dilemma or false dichotomy.  Because (many) R&R cling to the position that the Magisterium can become thoroughly corrupt ... with the exception only of those once-or-twice-per-century dogmatic definitions, the SVs have overreacted by exaggerating the limits and scope of infallibility to the (absurd) opposite extreme where a pope is infallible every time he passes wind, to extents that no theologian between Vatican I and Vatican II ever held.  As is nearly always true, the truth is in the middle.  I recommend Msgr. Fenton's essay on the infallibility of papal encyclicals for the Catholic balance.

Stay away from Fr. Fenton's essay, according to him we should all be following the conciliar popes because God gave popes "a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility" and that those who follow his directives "will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience." 
If what this priest teaches is true, then all trads everywhere are altogether wrong, if not in schism.

This debate is at the wrong level, at the level of infallibility, whereas the issue here is indefectibility.

The Church's indefectibiity is not at all the issue, if anything, it's the last thing we need to concern ourselves with. The Church will never defect, we know this because Christ and the Church are one. To worry about the Church defecting is to worry about Christ defecting - which is the absolute height of absurdity.

"At any rate" is an idiomatic expression that means "in any event" or "whatever the case may be
Therefore, nothing above merits any response you have conceded that you only hold an opinion, "whatever the case may be". I have already amply shown you that the office of Cardinal is NOT of the Divine Constitution of the Church as established by Christ but rather is a mechanism that was put into ecclesiastical law later (and you know this to be true anyway).

You're saying: Laws established and mandated by popes may be broken because they're not infallible. Although out of necessity to maintain your starting point you choose to ignore the law, we Catholics strive to be meticulous in favor of and toward the law, we cannot ignore the law or make it conform to our opinion, our opinion must conform with the law, that's why it's there.

I fixed it for you.....

Perfecto! Bravo! You see it - they were always popes to begin with:

Christ and pope are One Head = true, when the pope speaks ex cathedra.
Conclusion = Church is fine,  Christ is still at the helm.