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.

Yes, of course we must be subject to the pope in order to attain salvation - this is dogma.

We accomplish this re: my sig, and putting my sig to use, we repeat the example given us by St. Thomas More, we say: "We are the pope's good subject, but God's first."

This is not only *not* the least bit complicated, this is fully Catholic. And this is not only *not* impossible, it is "absolutely necessary" according to the above dogma.

For us subjects, it's a win/win whether he is pope or not, which IMO, cannot be said for sedeism.
 
If he ever commands something of us we can do without offending God, we will do it.

Well said, Stubborn.
What better example could we cite in this crisis of a true subject of the Pope than Archbishop Lefebvre.
As Bishop Williamson has so often explained, it is the same mistaken notion of 'subject' and Papal Infallibility that is at the root of both conciliarism and sedevacantism.
Those in the conciliar church say 'the Pope said it, therefore it must be true, we must obey in order to be subject to the Pope'.
The sedevacantist sees that the error or evil coming from the Pope is not Catholic and concludes 'he can't be pope'.
Neither is Catholic teaching. We don't find such a doctrine anywhere in antiquity, a subject declaring the authority to have ceased to exist, because of an abuse of that authority.
But we do find the Catholic doctrine of resisting evil authorities, of obeying God rather than men.

... the Siri Thesis, a thesis which I have commented before is patently ridiculous.  Siri was a Cardinal who never attached his name to the Ottaviani Intervention, never, as far as we know, condemned the Novus Ordo Missae, and never defended his "papacy."  Why hold onto the Siri Thesis?  It seems more plausible to say that the Church has been without a pope for over sixty years than to defend the Siri Thesis.  Overturn my objections to the Siri Thesis and I will gladly abandon course. 

But as to the Sede obsession, it seems to me that the only real issues are: avoid the NO Mass because it is sinful; tell others that they must become Catholic if they ask, because there is no salvation outside the Church; and receive valid sacraments from a valid priest/bishop.  Anything outside of this seems to us a distraction.  And besides, who in this Forum really believes that were Bryan Shepherd to die today that God would send him to hell because his attitude is, "Hell, I do not know if Francis is pope or not, and do not really at this point care, and as long as he acts like a heretic I am not going to do what he says anyway."  And then God says, "Oops Bryan, you screwed up, I gotta send you Hell, you got the whole Francis question wrong!"  This is totally ridiculous, making a monster out of God.

1327. The sin of carelessness about the service of God is also known as tepidity or lukewarmness. It consists in a want of fervor, and causes one to live in spiritual languor, wishing on the one hand to live holily and avoid sin, but fearing on the other hand the effort and generosity required for the practice of virtue and the struggle against evil. It is, therefore, most dangerous.

(a) Even if it is only internal, it may be more dangerous to the one concerned than grave sin itself, since threats and promises that move a sinner are often unavailing with one who is tepid and moving on to grave sin. Thus, we read: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would that thou wert cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (Apoc., iii. 15, 16).

(b) If it is external, this sin is a danger to others who witness the disrespectful way in which one prays or exercises other duties owed to God.

  This has NOTHING to do with carelessness.  No one who is a layperson can determine who is/isn't the pope.  And the only clerics who can determine such are the Cardinals, per canon law.


You can pretend to be a canon lawyer all you want (even though Halloween is over), but please stop acting like the laity's opinion has any weight or changes anything.  It doesn't.