CathInfo.com

Irrelevant, you are doing the same thing with your "dogmatic certainty" when you state that an "uncatholic heretic" can be the pope!

Only the Truth has rights, so either:
1)  I am wrong, and you are right.
2) You are wrong, and I am right.
3) We are both wrong.

I would not say the conciliar popes have been uncatholic, I would say they've been anti-Catholic.

Well, the truth is that all the conciliar popes have been elected the same way for about the last 1000 years, via the college of cardinals. What this means is that because all of the cardinals who elected them have accepted them as popes, that we must also. This makes me right and you wrong.

You are the one who is dissenting from what the ordinary and infallible magisterium of the Church has always taught about what makes one a member of the Church and what excludes one from membership. You seem to be hung up on how someone who was a Catholic can fall outside the Church due to "apostasy, heresy, or schism" (Pius XII), but then subsequently, due to true penance for their sin of heresy - that they confess - then can be brought back into the membership of the Church. Either you are extremely ignorant, or malicious on this point. I assume it is the first.

No, in order to suit your opinion you have adulterated what the Church teaches here. They are not "brought back into membership of the Church" through confession because non-Catholics cannot go to confession at all, I'm sure you know this but I will remind you now that the sacrament of penance is only for members of the Church, hence, nobody who is outside of the Church can go to confession at all.

Trent Chapter VII
On the Reservation of Cases

..."But it is consonant [in agreement] to the divine authority, that this reservation of cases have effect, not merely in external polity, but also in God's sight. Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavor, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."

I could go on and indisputably refute your misguided, misunderstanding of the catechisms and quotes you provided, but maybe if you concede the reason you're hell bent on your wrong idea is due to sedeism, and concentrate on what I said above, in time it will become clearer to you that one who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments.
The  excommunicated heretic, schismatic and apostate Catholic can receive the Sacrament of Penance, whereby the censure can be removed, and the sin be forgiven. The Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin. The heretic or excommunicated Catholic is in a more serious moral depression than the Catholic who is in the state of sin only. But  neither is in the woeful condition of those who are outside the Church.

I hope you have a Merry Christmas, and the Christ Child blesses you abundantly!

Thank you! And I wish you and yours the same!

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.

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

So, because those teachings that do not meet the notes of papal infallibility (as taught by Vatican I) can, strinctly speaking, be in error, this does not mean that there isn't a higher-level or broader protection of the Holy Spirit over the Magisterium.  R&R wrongly argue that if you can have 1 error, then you can have 1000 errors, or 10000 errors ... i.e. that this is merely a difference in degree.  That is false, and the clear litmus test for when it's "gone too far", so that it undermines the indefectibility of the Church, is when the Magisterial error has gone so far that Catholics not only are permitted but even obliged in conscience to separate themselves from communion with and subjection to the hierarchy in order to protect the Catholic faith.  At that point, the Church has defected, and (many) R&R clearly hold that the Church and the Magisterium can defect to this degree.  This does not mean that every word of a long, rambling, 2-hour speech to a group of midwives is, for all intents and purposes, no different than a solemn dogmatic definition and must be considered infallible (as many SVs ridiculously hold).  In fact, I've run into some SVs that go even to MORE absurd lengths, holding that every opinion of a Doctor of the Church is effectively infallible (since the Church endorsed their teaching) and (in one case) that books that have receved "imprimatur" and "nihil obstat" decisions are to be considered inerrant and binding.  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.

False dichotomy.  While +Levebre never officially embraced sedevacantism (though at one point hinted that he was privately inclined that way), he did not hold the R&R error that the Papacy, protected by the Holy Spirit, can wreck the Church to this degree. He merely felt (rightly so) that there were lack of requisite certainty regarding the minor of the SV conclusion to definitively (publicly/officially) go with it.

Both sides don't actually consider the entire SV syllogism, with the dogmatic SVs holding that the conclusion is dogmatic merely because one premise is, with (many) modern R&R rejecting the major of the syllogism that actually IS dogmatic, and therefore involving themselves in heresy.

But this is here is why I stopped participating in debates/arguments on CathInfo, individuals like yourself who wouldn't understand a nuance or distinction if it hit them in the face and then pontificating heretical statements as if they were Catholic teaching.