Yeahhh, I've seen you refer to this before. And this letter plus your other writing on this topic has been almost instrumental to helping me understand the crisis AND putting the matter to rest for me personally, thereby easing my conscience.
Lots of others take issue with what you say on this topic but I have learned a ton from you and I'm grateful. I am one of the few Sedeprivationist/SV I know and your explanations made it so much easier for me to talk(and get along) with other Traditional Catholics that do not see things the same way.

You are appreciated here on the forum. Just want to tell you that, man. 👍

God bless you.

Thanks.  I just try to seek the truth.  I started off as just generally realizing that the Conciliar Church is substantially different from the Traditional Church, with very little theology involved, no syllogisms, just the old sensus fidei ... you know, the old "Sesame Street" level of "Which of these things is not like the others?" [humming song] 

So I just went along SSPX style.  Then at seminary I started actually studying Catholic theology and ecclesiology ... and at that time I realized, again, that the R&R position just did not line up with the ecclesiology in those Catholic theology manuals.  I recall going on long walks with Bishop Williamson pointing out the discrepancies, and he just said things like, "Well, these theologians couldn't have imagined this Crisis."  I agreed but then said, "But the principles still have to remain, regardless of how they are to be applied to this situation.  To say that they change depending on circuмstances is precisely a Modernist mentality."  He didn't really engage me much down in the weeds, but had me corresponding with Fr. Urrutigoity, whom I found entirely unconvincing (and in retrospect I can understand why, since I doubt he was a very sincere Traditional Catholic, or even Catholic).

So I spent some time after that with Father Jenkins (helped out on his TV show and at his chapel in NE Ohio).  I didn't really like some hit piece shows they did on the +Thuc bishops, for one thing, and then of course they didn't have any kind of offering for a prospective seminarian.

At that time, I went to join Father Sanborn and he largely started up a seminary for me and one other guy ... Most Holy Trinity Seminary.  We didn't have any bishop, but were just trusting in God's Providence.  Of course, after he was later consecrated a bishop, then his seminary began to expand considerably.

So, while I was there, I ran into a guy who started telling me that Pius IX was also an Antipope, and possibly a couple of other ones.  While I didn't accept that, it caused me to realize that there's a problem here.  If Father Cekada's "Aunt Helen" could wake up one day and decide to depose the current pope because SHE decided that there was some heresy in his latest Encyclical, then what does that do to the Church?  What logical / principled "backstop" was there to prevent someone from doing that?  I couldn't think of one with straight SVism.  Some of the principles we held at the time, if I took them to their logical conclusion, would have made it so that I was the only Catholic left in the world ... and probably not even I.  So at that point, due to these reductio ad absurdum problems, I started to wonder ... and I prayed to Our Lady for guidance.

I ended up leaving there, then, still unsure, went to The Catholic Univesity of America for graduate school.  While I was there I attended Fr. Ringrose's chapel, and he invited me to stay with him (instead of where I had been), and so I helped out there, started a Gregorian schola, helped around the grounds, taught some adult catechism, etc. (in exchange for my room there ... and because I wanted to).  So, at one point, a friend of mine came up to me and told me that he had read this pamphlet by Father Cekada, and was thinking about it, and asked if I could explain to him why I had backed away from SVism (since he knew I had been an SV for some time).  So I wrote up the stuff that's in the OP there.  It was never intended for publication, just something I whipped out as quickly as I could so I could give it to him to have a look.  Somehow, and I still don't know how, this ended up in the hands of The Angelus Press and got published.  First I heard of it was when another friend came up to me one Sunday morning and said "Congratulations."  So, perplexed, I asked him, "Congratulations for what?"  "For your article in The Angelus."  "For what?"  So I picked up a copy and saw this thing in there.  I hadn't even put my name on it ... but The Angelus added it (so they knew who wrote it) ... except they spelled my name wrong.  It's correct in the OP somehow (not sure where that link got it from), but The Angelus article had it spelled wrong.  They also made some edits, added some translations of the Latin (which I hadn't taken the time to translate since, again, this was by no means a polished piece intended for publication in any way ... just was for my friend and whipped out as quick as I could just to get it to him).  Of course, later, Father Cekada attacked me for things like a few mis-translations and also for being arrogant by peppering it with Latin quotes.  See, there's a case of being judgmental, Father Cekada.  There was no arrogance intended, since I never intended this for publication ... just was too lazy to translate it (as my intended audience of one could just read it himself), and the one mistranslation he attacks wasn't mine.  He also said he would write a rebuttal because I stated that I was responding to Father Cekada's pamphlet.  Well, I was responding to it IN GENERAL in the sense that having read it was the reason this guy I wrote it for came to me, but I myself hadn't even READ his pamphlet.  So that was pretty funny there also.

In any case, Father Cekada's response really was an epic fail, where he rattled off a bunch of ad hominems, including about me arrogance (trying to give off pretensions of being erudite), by peppering it with Latin quotes, and the one or two mistranslations.  But he never really addressed the CORE ARGUMENT.  Rest of it was just chaff and distraction.  His main argument, since papal legitimacy was dogmatic fact, and dogmatic fact referred to "historical" things, one could not question the legitimacy of any pope UNLESS SOMEONE DURING THEIR LIFETIME had questioned it.  So I can't go back and question the legitimacy of Pius IX after the fact (though I suspect some Old Catholics could be found who did exactly that in his lifetime).  That's just an egregious blunder.  When the manuals say that domatic fact refers to historical matters, it doesn't mean PAST events.  "Historical" there means that the proposition if of a historical NATURE, something like an event, or a fact such as that St. Peter went to Rome, rather than an intellectual proposition of, say, a doctrine, that God is Three Divine Persons.  This has nothing to do with PAST or PRESENT, etc.  That was his key point of rebuttal and it's really a fatally-discrediting blunder of monumental proportions, an epic fail.

I had thought about responding there, to clear my good name, since he had tried to make me look like a fool in the article, but opted against it, since I had no intention to get into the "public arena", not intially and then not afterwards.  So I just let it go.

On top of that, it was NOT intended to be a promotion of R&R, nor even a FATAL rejection of SVism, but, as the title (that was mine, and they did keep it), as the title indicates, these were what I considered to be the "difficulties" with SVism, ones which I had not by any means solved, but just began the process of questioning.

But, again, The Angelus, presented it as some attack on SVism, and Fr. Cekada also took it that way, and thus the hubub.  Similarly, XavierNishant here also used it to attack my current position.  But that was never my intention with it.  I hadn't arrived at any definitive position yet, but was still searching.

Basically, the problem still stands.  Let's say that Aunt Helen is alive during the reign of Pope Pius XII, or some future (universally recognized as legit Traditional) Pope Pius XIII.  She wakes up one morning, reads his latest encyclical, decides it contains heresy (with all her deep formal education in theology ... meaning, none), and therefore considers Pope Pius an Antipope.  This is while he's alive so it's no longer "PAST" (per Fr. Cekada's silly blunder, offered in desperation, alongside of and camoflaged in personal attacks, since he couldn't actually refute the point).

There HAS to be some role for the Church and the Church's authority to play.  While the Church could not DEPOSE a pope, individuals couldn't just decide for themselves either that any given Pope is not a Pope.  Then-Father Sanborn was the one who I believed coined the term "Sifting the Magisterium", but it occurred to me:  What's the difference?  I have to SIFT (what appears to be) the Magisterium ANYWAY as the first step before I then go on to hold that the Pope was illegitimate.  IN BOTH CASES, it starts with some kind of "sifting", except that the SVs go to the extra step of SIFTING the POPEs.  That's where the title of "Pope-Sifting" came to me, a response to Then-Father Sanborn's term "Magisterium Sifting".  While I continued to agree that a corruption of the Mgaisterium was contrary to the Church and would entail a defection, this particular point was left at an impasse here.  I later change my perspective to more a recognition that the Conciliar Church lacked the marks, rather than in applying modus tollentis logic from the Magisterium back to the Pope.  But I won't go there now.  This is a radically different perspective that I think all Traditional Catholics agree on.  I think the current debate misses the Forest (of Indefectibility) for the Trees (of Infallibility).  In any case, I eventually ended up with a sedeprivationist type of perspective, since it finds a good balance between the ipso facto deposition (formally) and the material (ministerial) "deposition" (materially), the former done by God (quoad se) and the latter by the Church (quoad nos).  I don't agree with John of St. Thomas that the quoad nos precedes and causes the quoad se.  That's actually quite phenomenological of him.  Interestingly, Father and then Bishop Sanborn ENDED UP IN THE SAME PLACE, at sedeprivationism, but by a  different path.  Also, Father Chazal arrived at some very similar conclusions with his position, which I have no problem with at all.  This position actually reconciles the Bellarmine vs. Cajetan debate very nicely ... and I actually think that's where Bellarmine actually was, at sedeprivationism, without having used the term, and I see hints of it there, and I believe it's those elements that Salza / Siscoe misinterpret and then end up making the bizarre error of pretending that Bellarmine held the same postion as Cajetan.  So Bellarmine must have been too stupid to realize this, since he explicitly rejected Cajetan's position, mentioning Cajetan by name as holding it ... but somehow remaining unaware that he himself held it also?

So, that's the story behind the "Article" (that was never intended to be one) and also my journey through Traditional Catholicism ... thus far.  To be continued ...

Same here. I've had some knock down drag out fights with Lad, but I really appreciate his knowledge and tenacity in this battle.  It takes prodigious effort for a normal person (Lad) to resist a floridly manic bipolar (Nishant).

Yeah, and it's actually been over stupid stuff (rather than anything sustantive to the Faith).  I apologize for getting unduly irritated during those episodes.  It was out of proportion to the importance (or lack thereof) of those topics.  But I think that you and I both end up being rather blunt and direct, and therefore things "escalate quickly" between us when we disagree.  I also have a tendency to just type substance, without taking any account of tone whatsoever, because, despite what people think, I am very busy with two jobs.  I just type at the speed of a madman, and just rattle off substance and thoughts rather than doing anything to polish up the tone, and that directness tends to rub people the wrong way.  If peole were to actually meet me, I'm likely the OPPOSITE of what they imagine from my writing.  I'm very quiet and soft-spokem, rather on the meek, introverted, and melancholic side.  But I whip out these posts at lightning speed based on the first thing that comes into my head, and I do not edit them for tone ... which perhaps I should consider more.

While I can't stand this guy (he's a Satanist), this is a funny line that typifies some of the battles we've had:

Thanks.  I just try to seek the truth.  I started off as just generally realizing that the Conciliar Church is substantially different from the Traditional Church, with very little theology involved, no syllogisms, just the old sensus fidei ... you know, the old "Sesame Street" level of "Which of these things is not like the others?" [humming song] 

...

So, that's the story behind the "Article" (that was never intended to be one) and also my journey through Traditional Catholicism ... thus far.  To be continued ...

Great story and great writing (I mean the post). Thank you for this.

Great story and great writing (I mean the post). Thank you for this.

Thanks.  I just whipped it out, as I said, stream of consciousness, just recounting what happened there ... similar to how I wrote the piece in the OP, just rattled it off, if I recall, in about two hours one Sunday afternoon, with the most time-consuming part being to copy various citations from theological texts into the paper, without having the time (or the need I thought) to translate them, thereby taking heat over it from Fr. Cekada.

Is how you have explained the historicity of dogmatic facts, why you hold in part the "Siri Theory"? I thought I remember you mentioning believing in his legitimacy or at least that his whole drama may have invalidated John XXIII's election. Sorry if I got the nuance of your own personal position wrong, just looking for a little clarification.

Well, I came to those two conclusions independently, but they are related in a way, with some overlap.

If you hold the theory that Universal Peaceful Acceptance can actually provide a sanatio for an illegitimate election, then you'd say it doesn't matter, when the Church accepted Roncalli, this effectively deposed Siri.  I have real problems with mechanisms that would depose a pope, since they savor of Conciliarist heresy.

I know that a lot of SVs attack the Siri Theory ironically from a Universal Acceptance perspective ... the problem for them being that it also backfires on the, since that would make Roncalli and Montini legitimate Popes.  See, NOBODY considered those two men heretics nor demonstrated that there was any evidence for manifest heresy before their election.

That's where the recent shift to "well, we now hold that they were never popes to begin with due to heresy" labors under serious difficulties.  OK, then show the manifest heresy of Roncalli and Montini before Vatican II.  Roncalli had a file on him for being "suspect of Modernism" and there are rumors of his having engaged in various non-Catholic behaviors, and there were rumors of unnatural vices practiced by Montini ... but I haven't seen a shred of evidence for manifest heresy for either one of them before their election.

So there are serious problems with SVism that the Siri Theory explains.

SVs generally reject Univeral Acceptance ... pretty much have to.  They can say, "Accepted by whom?" ... meaning those who accept him are all heretics?  But was that really true AT THE TIME Montini was elected, that all the bishops of the world AT THAT TIME were heretics?  You might be able to pull that off for Bergoglio since by this time it's likely true.

Siri Thesis explains it all, 100%.  SVism has serious issues.  With SPism, Bishop Sanborn somewhat modifies Universal Acceptance theory (subtly so that people don't notice) where it merely guaranteeds the legitimacy of an election, not the formal posession of office.  So this would rule out Siri Thesis ... but permit him to continue holding to the formal vacancy of the See.  Again, you still have problems with Montini (for the same reasons above, as to why he's not also a FORMAL pope, since I see no evidence of manifest heresy in him before election).  Yet it's also completely wrong.  Billot stated that UA derived from the notion that the Church could never accept a false rule of faith, not that the Church couldn't be mistaken about the legitimacy of an election.  If the Church generally accepted Montini as the FORMAL POPE, i.e. the rule of faith ... then this would mean he was the FORMAL POPE ... despite Bishop Sanborn's sleight of hand attempting to redefine UA theory.

But what happens to the Siri thesis beginning with Popes elected after Cardinal Siri died?

John XXIII was not a formal heretic before the election, so the Siri thesis says that his election was null and Siri was the real Pope. 

When Ratzinger was elected, the first Pope to be elected after Cardinal Siri died in 1989, you use the regular Cassiciacuм thesis logic and say that he was only a material Pope since he had been a formal heretic for decades before his election. 

Is that how it works for you?

But what happens to the Siri thesis beginning with Popes elected after Cardinal Siri died?

John XXIII was not a formal heretic before the election, so the Siri thesis says that his election was null and Siri was the real Pope.

Not quite.  Siri thesis has to do with the election itself, not the imputation of heresy to anyone.  So, the way it goes, Siri was elected, accepted the papacy, even picked the name Gregory XVII.  THEN the infiltrator Cardinals threaten him somehow to step down, and he complies.  That resignation would be invalid since it happened under duress.  At that point they install Roncalli, who's illegitimate not because of any heresy, but because Siri was still the rightful pope.

Interestingly, there's a prophecy from St. Francis that refers to an "uncanonically elected pope" that would become a destroyer.

So, this makes a lot of sense.  I agree with Gary Giuffre that they deliberately engineered it this way because a validly elected pope would be prevented by the Holy Ghost from wrecking the Church ... where God would strike him down or else convert him.  Pius IX was arguably THE MOST LIBERAL Cardinal in the Church when he was elected ... and there are some not-altogether-unsubstantiated allegations that he had actually become a Freemason ... but then God converted him into a strong anti-Modernist Pope.  But God's protection over the Papacy would not apply to an Antipope ... which is why they waited for Siri to accept.  They could just as easily have contacted him BEFORE the conclave, threatened him then to just not accept.  There's no notion there that refusal to accept under duress makes you the rightful Pope.

So the most common SV explanation, that Montini never became pope due to manifest heresy simply fails ... since there's no evidence of manifest heresy before his election.  Father Cekada, in addressing Salza's book, stated that nearly all SVs have abandoned the argument that Montini FELL from the papacy, but hold that he never had it in the first place.  OK, well, where's evidence for manifest heresy before Montini's election.  I've never seen anything.  Now, people claim he ratted out clergy behind the Iron Curtain and was a sodomite ... but neither of those are heresy where he'd cease to be a Catholic, and they're not proven at this time, just various rumors out there.

Agreed. He is the one who "ratified" VII.

If the Council contained condemned errors, then both the pope and bishops who approved of it would be manifesting heresy no?

That happened after his election to the papacy.  My point was, given Fr. Cekada's assertion that most SVs have rejected the notion that Montini et al. FELL from the papacy, but instead hold that they were never popes to begin with, on account of manifest heresy ... where's the evidence of heresy before his election?

Or was Fr. Cekada wrong?