A couple of fallacies here. Surely anything "hasty" is a fault. But the fallacy is that you beg the question that it is hasty. You would have to be a mind reader to say so, because you have no idea what I have in my mind behind what I said. And the other fallacy is to conclude I have nothing just because I have not presented it yet. A fallacy to demand something immediately and when you see it doesn't fall in your lap immediately, you declare hastiness.
What question precisely do I beg? Pointing out hastiness and gross generalizations absent proper distinctions doesn't amount to begging anything. And though I can't "read your mind" I am very familiar with the doctrines in question and the nature of the problem at hand. You are just intellectually lazy and rely on the "silver bullet" of the term "heresy" as if the matter is self-evident. Then you balk at someone having the audacity to call into question your "judgment." And imputing fallacies in order to save face is a sad tactic. I didn't rely on the fact that you didn't present the entire case, rather I relied on the fact that I know what I'm talking about.
Why not? Isn't that what true Catholics ought to do when they've been headless for over 50 years?
Why not, because Catholics should never violate Catholic principle and doctrine.
I suppose you'll have to demonstrate the fact that the matter is immutable principle and doctrine. Are you not familiar with the principles of equity? Or do you simply cling like a pharisee to human custom while the entire Church goes down in flames? Rather you are hiding behind this alleged "doctrine" in order to exonerate any effort on the part of a "true Catholic."
I must've mistaken you for a dogmatic sedevacantist who thinks that not only the Pope, but the entire hierarchy has apostasized and that consequently, you only associate with other sedevacantists who have the same opinion. Is that not correct?
The sedevacantist position is based upon a dogmatic fact. For instance, if an archeologists states that he has the skull of the BVM, we know as a dogmatic fact the skull is not hers.
You've mixed up so many principles I don't know where to begin, but I suppose I'll start with the fact that a contingent fact of whether or not this or that man is an heretic is no where on the same level as dogmatic truth. The fact that you think so demonstrates extreme perversity.
The Holy Ghost would rather have a true pope die than allow him to universally promote something harmful to the faith. Therefore, if a man does so, his claims to be pope are false and it is a dogmatic fact he is not a true pope.
This is a gratuitious assertion, demanding your own human limitations be applied to God. Unless of course you claim to be an oracle of God. And the fact that this or that man is Pope is a dogmatic fact, not the absence of one. Why do you attempt to gain credibility for your opinions by forcing notions into wrong categories? Unless you think that your declaration amounts to an authoritative judgment.
It's good that you don't want to violate principles in proceeding with a papal election, the problem is that your own position involves in fact, if pressed beyond the purview of your own mind, a violation of several principles, not the least of which is the usurpation of judgment and the violation of the principle of the presumption of law and the legal determination of ipso facto penalties along with authoritative admonishments that must be involved in the external forum in order to establish pertinacity.
And why do you appeal to a time when a valid Pope reigned? You deny such an idea in the premise. Why do you not consider that such a custom and law gives way to the higher principle of the salvation of souls? You mean to tell me that the entire Church must go without a head for FIFTY years because of some human law? Get real.
Time to get real yourself, so I will inform you of some real Catholic things. You are ignorant of some Catholic principles that throw your thinking, in this matter, out of whack.
It is a catholic moral principle that "a doubtful pope is no pope", just the same as a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament. This is what the SSPX carefully avoids, from what I have seen so far. The SSPX believe the opposite - that if you have a doubt that he may be pope, you must believe he is pope.
"Doubt" according to what? You're own judgment or objective ascertainable legal facts? Your "principle" amounts to saying that a man who entertains subjective doubts about anything at all nullifies objective order. This is patently ridiculous and is a reckless application of a legitimate concept. You are most incredibly ignorant of real principles like the presumption of law wherein validity is presumed. You in fact do the opposite which is an inversion of principle. If I have a 'doubt' about something, there is a whole host of other things I must consider, in addition to recognizing that even if my 'doubt' was well founded, usurping authority in declaring that such and such is so is a grotesque sin against justice.
Canon law is mostly human law, and only divine law applies to a pope. Applying human law to a pope is a fallacy. The Roman Pontiff is above canon law. So, presumption of human law does not trump the moral law of a doubtful pope is no pope.
This again is a distortion of doctrine. When the Pope acts as legislator, he is indeed above it, but when he functions otherwise he is subject to it. The Church is not a lawless society. Your lust for judgment cannot undo the demands of order and justice.
Finally, the Church teaches that reason, enlightened by faith, is a true authority. This is the authority that concludes the man is not a true pope.
I usually refain from making comparisons with protestants in this matter, but I have never seen anyone formulate the matter so strikingly similar to the protestant heresy of private judgment and radical individualism.