No, I wasn't being defensive.  I just don't see how CT contradicts the quotation ... so, rather than speculate, I was asking that Quo first articulate what he perceives to be the point of contradiction.

[PS -- I did not downthumb anything.]

I've been rather busy lately, so my responses are much shorter than usual.

My apologies then.  It sounded that way to me.  Not to mention that his question sat for days with no answer from any member who takes the CT position.
Just so you know, I know you did not down thumb my post.  

I appreciate all of your answers and I don’t reject the thesis outright. It seems to me that the only issue it resolves is the ability for the Church to obtain a true pope. I don’t see it as an answer to the issue of a visible magisterium. Can you tell me what other problems, if any, it resolves?

Well, in my own opinion ... and I don't think a lot of CT adherents draw this conclusion from the principles, but I do ... it also solves the problem of episcopal jurisdiction.  I believe that material-pope still has the power of designation, and so he can appoint Bishops to Sees.  Those bishops, then, could formally exercise jurisdiction provided they themselves have no impediment to doing so (e.g. heresy).  I do believe that many bishops, especially the Eastern Rite bishops, are formally still Catholic.  Many adhere to V2 teaching only because they THINK it comes from the Church, and so would only be in material error.

It also provides an answer to the issue with sedevacantism of who has the authority or the right to declare the See vacant.  Obviously, we can't have armchair lay theologians deposing popes.  I knew one guy who declared Pius IX an anti-pope on account of some heresy he perceived in his writings.  Yes, that's a fringe case, but the principles of straight sedevacantism do not in principle preclude such a thing.  There has to be SOME role played by the Church in the entire matter, and it cannot be left to individual Catholics to decide, and I think that CT provides a good answer for this.

It's primarily that latter reason which has me gravitating towards CT, since private judgment can never suffice for determining papal legitimacy ... which must be known with the certainty of faith.

BTW, just because I have taken a liking to the CT position ... because I believe that it addresses well some of the legitimate complaints that R&R have about sedevacantism ... I am certainly not dogmatic about it.  It's just an opinion, like so many opinions out there.

Well, in my own opinion ... and I don't think a lot of CT adherents draw this conclusion from the principles, but I do ... it also solves the problem of episcopal jurisdiction.  I believe that material-pope still has the power of designation, and so he can appoint Bishops to Sees.  Those bishops, then, could formally exercise jurisdiction provided they themselves have no impediment to doing so (e.g. heresy).  I do believe that many bishops, especially the Eastern Rite bishops, are formally still Catholic.  Many adhere to V2 teaching only because they THINK it comes from the Church, and so would only be in material error.

It also provides an answer to the issue with sedevacantism of who has the authority or the right to declare the See vacant.  Obviously, we can't have armchair lay theologians deposing popes.  I knew one guy who declared Pius IX an anti-pope on account of some heresy he perceived in his writings.  Yes, that's a fringe case, but the principles of straight sedevacantism do not in principle preclude such a thing.  There has to be SOME role played by the Church in the entire matter, and it cannot be left to individual Catholics to decide, and I think that CT provides a good answer for this.

It's primarily that latter reason which has me gravitating towards CT, since private judgment can never suffice for determining papal legitimacy ... which must be known with the certainty of faith.

BTW, just because I have taken a liking to the CT position ... because I believe that it addresses well some of the legitimate complaints that R&R have about sedevacantism ... I am certainly not dogmatic about it.  It's just an opinion, like so many opinions out there.

Thanks Lad, you gave me something to mull over.