The problem I see here is that sedevacantists seem to only be able to present the opinions of those who say that the sede thesis is true and the Pope must not be Pope. I have never seen any truth (i.e dogma, Bible verses, encyclicals, etc.) that supports the sede stance that if a Pope commits heresy he ceases to be Pope. My view is that a Pope CAN fall into to heresy and therefore lose his office, but to do so he would have to continue doing it and also be well aware of what he was doing with an evil intent behind it. There's no way you can prove that Benedict's intent is to bring the Church down. We can't judge a person's thoughts or motives. Only their actions.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction ...

A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben's “Dogmatik” Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D. With A Preface By Cardinal Manning

III. We must be careful to distinguish between the authority of one or a certain number of the Fathers, and the consentient testimony of all of them. It is evident that the former is not infallible, because the Church's approbation of their writings is not intended to be a guarantee of the truth of all that they teach. Some particular works, as, for instance, St. Cyril's Anathemas, have, however, received this guarantee. The Church's approbation implies: (1) that the writings approved were not opposed to any doctrine publicly held by the Church in the time of the author, and consequently were not subject to any censure ; (2) that the doctrines for which the Father was renowned, and on which he insisted most, are positively probable ; (3) that there is a strong presumption that the doubtful expressions of the Fathers should be interpreted in accordance with the commonly received doctrine, and that no discrepancy should be admitted among them except on the strongest grounds; (4) under extraordinary circuмstances it may give us a moral certainty of a doctrine when, for instance, some illustrious Father has, without being contradicted by the Church, openly enforced that doctrine as being Catholic, and has treated those who deny it as heretics. When, however, all the Fathers agree, their authority attains its perfection. The consent of the Fathers has always been looked upon as of equal authority with the teaching of the whole Church, or the definitions of the Popes and Councils. But inasmuch as it is hardly possible to ascertain the opinions of every Father on every point of doctrine, and as the Holy Ghost prevents the Church from ascribing to the whole body of the Fathers any doctrine which they did not hold, it follows that the consent of the Fathers must be regarded as fully ascertained whenever those of them whose writings deal with a given doctrine agree absolutely or morally, provided that they are numerous and belong to different countries and times. The number required varies with the nature of the doctrine, which may be public, a matter of daily practice and of great importance, or, on the other hand, may be of an abstract, speculative character, and comparatively unimportant: and with the personal authority of the Fathers, with their position in the Church, with the amount of opposition to the doctrine, and with many other circuмstances.

The Consent of the Fathers does not always prove the Catholic character of a doctrine in the same way. If they distinctly state that a doctrine is a public dogma of the Church, the doctrine must be at once accepted. If they merely state that the doctrine is true and taught by the Church, without formally attributing to it the character of a dogma, this testimony has by no means the same weight. The doctrine thus attested cannot, on that account, be treated as a dogma. Nevertheless it is at least a Catholic truth and morally certain, and the denial of it would deserve the censure of temerity or error.

You keep repeating this oft asserted notion without realizing that it is precisely the determination of fact that is at issue.  In other words, you are assuming that authority will side with you or that the defendant would not recant or renounce his errors when admonished by authority.  There have been many cases where heresy has been discovered and reported to Roman authorities with the author eventually submitting to authority and doing penance.  Your judgment does not allow for this.

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Spiritus, you want some evidence towards proving that JPII could have been an antipope too?

Those are theses extracted and formed by someone else.  In other words, someone read the book and attempted to deduce certain propositions or theses which the reader thought were contained in the work.  Those are not the words of JPII.  But even supposing these are entirely accurate interpretations, it doesn't necessarily follow that JPII was a formal heretic.  It only means that heresy has been found within his works.  This is the first step of the process by which authority determines the matter.  You're making a big leap over very important details and coming to a particular conclusion.  Read history for a change and see for yourself how the Church has dealt with these things.      

Quote from: Caminus

You keep repeating this oft asserted notion without realizing that it is precisely the determination of fact that is at issue.  In other words, you are assuming that authority will side with you or that the defendant would not recant or renounce his errors when admonished by authority.  There have been many cases where heresy has been discovered and reported to Roman authorities with the author eventually submitting to authority and doing penance.  Your judgment does not allow for this.

Why is this necessary? The problem is that you believe that pertinacity can be/is determined only by an official judgment from authority.

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Spiritus, you want some evidence towards proving that JPII could have been an antipope too?

Those are theses extracted and formed by someone else.  In other words, someone read the book and attempted to deduce certain propositions or theses which the reader thought were contained in the work.  Those are not the words of JPII.  But even supposing these are entirely accurate interpretations, it doesn't necessarily follow that JPII was a formal heretic.  It only means that heresy has been found within his works.  This is the first step of the process by which authority determines the matter.  You're making a big leap over very important details and coming to a particular conclusion.  Read history for a change and see for yourself how the Church has dealt with these things.      

Caminus, do you realize I said "could have been?" I'm "making a big leap?" I'm making no such leap. You're assuming (as you usually do.)

You said, "How about his theses that he [JPII] put together in his book."  And the term "anti-pope" is inexact.  The term refers to one who claims to be the Pope in the face of a legitimately reigning Pope.    

Quote from: Caminus

No one denies we face a larger problem, in fact, that's what I've been pointing out.  But for the SV, he must deal with the logical conclusions and difficulties of his own position in an honest and forthcoming manner, rather than boasting to other traditional Catholics that they have it "all figured out" only to have pity on others and even despise them.

You said I do, and I've been saying the opposite for years. I've said it many times here, yet you still make the accusation. I have to believe you're just here to argue.