Absolutely agree.  And looking back at Church history, did the Church ever retroactively say that the 90% of bishops who were arian had lost their offices or weren't real bishops?  No.  Why not?  My opinion is that it's not necessary.  The prudent course of action is to simply separate yourself from the quasi-heretic until the Church deals with it.  If the Church is in such chaos that She can't deal with it, or most clerics don't see the error, then laymen and simple priests have the unenviable position of waiting...patiently... and relying on God to sort it out eventually.  One can't take matters into their own hands, as some sedes do, and start declaring that this or that person 1) is a formal heretic and 2) their office is empty.

At some point the Church cleared herself of the Arian heresy.  Did it happen overnight?  Heavens no, it took decades.  So shall V2 take a while to flush down the toilet.

Absolutely correct. I agree with you. But what does one do with Francis? He materially occupies the Chair of Peter. He promulgates via his magisterium the implementation of public adulterers receiving the sacraments and states via twitter that they are NOT ex-communicated. Stand aside and say "O well he is still the Pope and I will follow him come hell or high water no matter what he does." Does it get to the point where you have left the Church?

With Sisco's ideas what happens when Francis allows women deacons? He is still a fully empowered Pope with his thinking.

Great, so now that you're certain Francis is the true Pope and that Vatican 2 and the N.O. right are valid, you're going to start attending N.O. masses, right? 

Pope Benedict XVI 2009 - "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society [of St. Pius X] has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers — even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty — do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

When +Williamson describes the Conciliar Papal Claimant as the head of two churches, he's kindof right but not the way he thinks.

Materially, they are heads of the Catholic Church, but formally heads of the Conciliar Church.  There cannot be two Churches within the one Church, as the Church's mark of one-ness would be eliminated.

I agree about sedeprivationism being the most logical.  


—-
You said:
Just because Francis didn't solemnly promulgate any particular proposition in Amoris Laetitia does not mean that it is not official and authoritative teaching.
——

I’m not coming to this conclusion on my own.  As I’ve quoted in the past, numerous theologians have said that V2 is fallible and not magisterially binding and can be questioned.  As for Amoris Latitiae (sp), there are plenty of Cardinals and theologians who have said publically that “AE” is not infallible, it’s not doctrinal, and it’s not authoritative.  In fact, the concern over the extreme conclusions of AE led the 4 Cardinals to write the “Dubia letter” and reiterate Catholic doctrine and set the record straight on the authoritative level of AE.  The evidence is there to show that the entire V2 theology, while novel and heretical, is meant to APPEAR authoritative but in reality, is not.  It is meant to APPEAR magisterial and binding, but the theologians qualify and disclaim the “teachings” to the extent that you’re left with new-Rome’s response to the new-sspx, which is: “agree with it in general, now, but specifically you can question it, later.”

If the V2 theology was truly magisterial and authoritative, then they wouldn’t make up the term “religious submission” which basically means “accept that this error was in a council docuмent, but you don’t have to accept the concept or idea inherent in the error.  Just accept the idea that, sometime in the future, the Church will explain why this error happened.”

I mean, can they disclaim V2 anymore than they already have? 

..........It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.

When quoting Archbishop Lefebvre the most important part of the quote has been diminished.  

The Archbishop gave the example of accepting Pope Francis as Pope.
He said that this hypothesis (may well be) confirmed by the Church

In sum - until we have a reforming Pope with the authority to decide the issue definitively sedevacantism remains a hypothesis.
On that basis it would be uncatholic for any priest to say a non una cuм Mass.

Saintly theologians would be horrified that any Catholic would use their opinions to act on, and justify his/her own private interpretation of Church law.

The pure subjectivism here is amazing. Doubts do not exist in reality but only in the intellect.

Suppose someone doubts the sun has risen: Will it change the fact? Not in the slightest.

Suppose someone doubts God's Nature or Christ's Resurrection: What has he done? Committed an objective mortal sin.

Did it affect the fact of Who God Is or What Christ has done? Not in the least, and it would be subjectivism to say otherwise.

It is not the doubt of any private individual that matters, but only the acceptance or lack thereof from the Catholic Hierarchy.

Well, that should settle it right there

Nice. Cardinal Newman likewise modified his doubts and accepted Papal Infallibility after the Church Teaching taught him that it was true. Does it matter? We accept what the Teaching Church tells us, not what private individuals say. Siscoe or Newman is unimportant. It is the Church that settles every doubt, that's why Infallibility has been given to the Church for, as per Pope St. Pius X.

Let me ask you a question: if the Church some time in future settled the doubt of Pope Francis' pontificate, how would you know it? 

Catholics are able to identify visibly the OUM of the Church, what Pope St. Pius X's Catechism calls the Teaching Church or the Hierarchy. Where is the sedevacantist/privationist/doubtist OUM?

Van Noort says of Pope Pius XII, as Siscoe has cited many times, "the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (or OUM) is giving an utterly clear cut witness to the legitimacy of his Succession (to St. Peter)". Pope Pius XII himself clearly taught that the OUM was indefectible. Also cited where works from John of St. Thomas where it is said this is equivalent to a dogmatic declaration. 

But leave all that aside for a minute: there are some 5350 Ordinaries in the Catholic Church. Can you show us even 50 who did not accept the election the Pope? 

And even 50 wouldn't undercut moral unanimity of acceptance, but I doubt (pun intended!) anyone can show even 10 who reject the Pope. So, to focus on Siscoe and others like each of us Laity only confuses the issue. It is the acceptance of the Hierarchy that counts.

Please, anyone, show us some residential Bishops in the Catholic Hierarchy who formally reject Pope Francis or are "non una cuм". I'd be genuinely curious to know if any such exist at all. But if they don't exist, we can be quite certain that SVism is the wrong explanation.

This is what the CE says about the mark of Apostolicity: "Hence authoritative transmission of power, i.e. Apostolicity, is essential. In all theological works the same explanation of Apostolicity is found, based on the Scriptural and patristic testimony just cited. Billuart (III, 306) concludes his remarks on Apostolicity in the words of St. Jerome: "We must abide in that Church, which was founded by the Apostles, and endures to this day.: Mazella (De Relig. et Eccl., 359), after speaking of Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles, insists upon the necessity of jurisdiction or authoritative transmission, thus excluding the hypothesis that a new mission could ever be originated by anyone in the place of the mission bestowed by Christ and transmitted in the manner described. Billot (De Eccl. Christi, I, 243-275) emphasizes the idea that the Church, which is Apostolic, must be presided over by bishops, who derive their ministry and their governing power from the Apostles. Apostolicity, then, is that Apostolic succession by which the Church of today is one with the Church of the Apostles in origin, doctrine, and mission. The history of the Catholic Church from St. Peter, the first Pontiff, to the present Head of the Church, is an evident proof of its Apostolicity"

The pure subjectivism here is amazing. Doubts do not exist in reality but only in the intellect.

Suppose someone doubts the sun has risen: Will it change the fact? Not in the slightest.

What's astonishing here is the lack of logic on your part.  Downright idiotic.

Please read the distinction made by John of St. Thomas between quoad se and quoad nos.

If a Catholic has doubts about the validity of a particular Mass, while the doubt certainly does not change the fact of whether or not it was actually valid in the objective order, that Catholic is forbidden from attending the Mass due to positive doubt.

Certainly, if Bergoglio is actually a pope, certainly a doubt would not change that fact, quoad se, that he's the pope.  But I doubt effects whether Catholics are required to submit to him as pope.

It's ironic that you refuse submission to the Pope by aligning yourself with the SSPX when you have no doubt that Bergoglio is the actual pope.  This makes you a formal schismatic.

You're a subjectivist through and through. 

If it is an objective fact that there is no Catholic Hierarchy, (which is heretical even to maintain), then it is impossible to be in schism from it. And if it is an objective fact (and in fact a dogma) that that Hierarchy exists and will always exist, doubting that the Hierarchy exists or staying away from it is always objectively a sin with varying degrees of culpability. 

Even you know this, deep down: if an Anglican or a Baptist told you, "I have grave doubts that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church of Christ - therefore I am justified in not entering Her." I hope you will not say, "yes, that's absolutely true, as long as you doubt, you're safe and you'll be saved". What you should answer is, based on the defined dogma that we cannot be saved outside Catholic communion and without subjection to the Roman Pontiff,["We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam)] - that the Anglican or Baptist must pray and study to resolve his doubts, and then he will receive the grace to see what he had thus far been prevented from seeing, that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. 

You repeat your personal claims about the SSPX, contrary to (1) the Pope who explicitly said to the District Superior in Argentina, "You are Catholic. I will help you." (2) the fact that Priests outside Catholic communion cannot have the power to forgive sins, (3) that SSPX Bishops after the Year of Mercy have ordinary jurisdiction, as Bp. Fellay has confirmed - and ordinary jurisdiction cannot exist outside the Church and (4) that none of 1-3 affects laymen who attend SSPX chapels anyway, but of course you just want that rhetorical point.

And I don't need to mention that (5) Come Divine Mercy Sunday, the SSPX will probably have 2 more Bishops with Papal Approval.

Now, let's come to the crux of the matter: is it a sin to doubt the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII or not? If you say, yes, because he had universal acceptance, then you admit the fact that universal acceptance, in and of itself, resolves every doubt. Therefore, it is objectively sinful to doubt a Pope after universal acceptance has resolved the doubt. Can we at least agree in principle on that much, Ladislaus? 

Onto Archbishop Lefebvre: His Grace also said, "The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no Cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others. Our Fraternity absolutely refuses to enter into such reasonings.

We wish to remain attached to Rome and to the Successor of Peter, while refusing his Liberalism through fidelity to his predecessors. We are not afraid to speak to him, respectfully but firmly, as did St. Paul with St. Peter. And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith. Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate Triumph." https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm This was in 1979, so only two decades had passed. Now, 6 decades have.

Archbishop Lefebvre always distinguished (1) the possibility that one single Pope may have lost his office or not been Pope, with (2) the absurd claim that an interregnum could last for decades and take away the visibility of the Catholic Church. (2) is not possible for sure.

With respect to (1), in times of great crisis, look, sometimes doubts may arise. That's understandable. But when other stronger considerations arise which allow us to settle our doubts, we can and should use those considerations to settle the doubt. That is what Archbishop Lefebvre did here above, teaching it is not possible for the visibility of the Church to disappear for decades. Even 2, let alone 6+ decades. That consideration can give anyone who wishes the firm conviction and certitude that SVism is now the wrong explanation. 

Go in order and your doubts will be resolved. These are the two questions you must ask and answer for yourself: (1) where is the OUM of the Church? (2) Next, once you have identified the visible Teaching Church, ask yourself, do the Ordinaries accept the Pope? That's all.