No one says that "sedeism" solves the Crisis in the Church.  What this is about is doctrine, what people believe about the Church and the papacy.  Those who hold the opinion that the Papacy can corrupt the Magisterium, the Mass, produce a plethora of bogus canonizations (despite the solemn formula used) ... are slouching inexorably toward Old Catholicism and are destroying Tradition while pretending to preserve it, exactly as the Old Catholics did.  They too claimed that they rejected Papal Infallibility because it was "contrary to Tradition".  Some R&R are throwing the Church under the bus in order to salvage nothing more than a guy walking around Rome in a white cassock.  This is what the battle is about.  As I said, if it were a question of Bergoglio adhering to heresy as a private person, who cares?  Let the Cardinals deal with him.  Not my problem.  But the V2 Antipopes have made it our problem, because there can be no salvation without subjection to the Roman Pontiff (defined dogma) ... and, no, Bergoglio's picture in your chapel vestibule doesn't count.

That's why it's obvious that the V2 papal claimants are not popes.  Follow along please.  Your heresy is in claiming that the two can be true at the same time, that the Catholic Church can be transformed into something that's so un-Catholic that we must remain separated from it and that a legitimate Pope produced such a radical transformation.  This is exactly what the Prots claimed too, that the Church had been corrupted.  You've become nothing more than a blend of Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Old Catholic ... and have ceased to profess the Catholic faith ... on account of your assertion that the Papacy and the Church can corrupt the faith, that the Magisterium and Mass can become corrupt.

If the Catholic Church can never "be transformed into something that's so un-Catholic that we must remain separated from it", then why has the SSPX separated from it and built a parallel church alongside the Catholic Church and against the will of the men they claim as popes?

Is Vatican II Catholic or not?

If the Catholic Church can never "be transformed into something that's so un-Catholic that we must remain separated from it", then why has the SSPX separated from it and built a parallel church alongside the Catholic Church and against the will of the men they claim as popes?

Is Vatican II Catholic or not?

Dear Stubborn,
Pope Boniface VIII, in the Bull "Unam Sanctam", clearly states that every human creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff. No matter what one does or says, that fact remains unchanged. Even if one realizes that a particular pope is not the pope; even if someone becomes an apostate, heretic schismatic, an atheist, buddist, hindu etc. We are always subject to the pope even at the time of interregnum. No one can choose not to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. It is safe to discuss the legitimacy and validity of the reigning pope. One cannot not be subject to the pope.

There's formal subjection to the Supreme Pontiff and material subjection.  What's required is formal subjection.  You can remain formally subject even while remaining materially not subject.  Examples include interregna, or the Great Western Schism (for those who picked an Antipope to be subject to due to material error), or individuals who, say, lived in remote lands in the past and who had no idea who the pope was at any given time.  Those are some who are materially subject, i.e. go to their parishes but have no intention of being subject to the Pope (there are many Conciliarists who fall into this category).

Sedevacantists remain formally subject to the Supreme Pontiff:
R&R are skating on incredibly thin ice.  Unless they at least harbor some doubts about the legitimacy of the papal claimants (which many of them secretly ... or publicly ... do, as was the case with +Lefebvre, for instance), they're in grave danger.

Note that isolated acts of disobedience are not inherently schismatic, but there's a fine line between disoebeying here or there and what R&R are doing, claiming that it's OK to set up chapels, Mass centers, administer Sacraments, etc. ... outside of communion with the Holy See and in a way where they do not report to him.  It's one thing to occasionally and disrespectfully reject a questionable papal teaching, from within the Church, and quite another to completely ignore everything one of these "popes" teaches and commands, and adopt the attitude of "There goes that joker Bergoglio again with yet another trash Encyclical."  Isolated acts of disobedience are one thing, while chronic disobedience, setting up your own chapels in a parallel church, is another thing entirely ... which is where your danger lies.  Note Father Szal's having used "refuses obedience" as synonymous with not being subject to.  What he means is a chronic attitude of disobedience, and not isolated acts of disobedience, but at some point the instances of disobedience cross over from a collection of instances of disobedience (difference in degree) to a chronic attitude of disobedience (difference in kind), and generally creating a parallel church very often is the litmus test for this chronic condition (vs. accuмulated acts of disobedience).

Many R&R skate on extremely thin ice and need to examine their consciences.  Putting Jorge's picture up in your vestibule does not save you, nor does simply paying lip service to him, "Yep, that's the pope over there, but we're just going to do our own thing here."  Many of you are also in objective/material heresy, and need to pray to be snapped out of it.  I've long urged the R&R to have a look at and prayerfully consider Father Chazal's position, which avoids this problem, as it may save your souls.

Because it is in his office as Pope that we must be subject to him, not in his private errors...