This question must one day be answered…”

By Church authorities, not by laymen, priests and non-jurisdictioned bishops.

But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.”

It is important but there are limits to its importance because of our ability to do anything about it.  I worry about the economy and about the health affects of the future 5G network, but what can I really do about these things?  Not much, except pray.  So, the amount of importance we should (and can) place on the papal question is limited.

Formal deposition is the culmination of the process that begins with, first individual or localized doubts, escalates into universal doubts, and then culminates in actual deposition.

This is where the sedeprivationist distinctions make so much sense.  Theologians hold that widespread doubt based on grave reasons would justify Catholics withdrawing from submission.  Other theologians state that in the face of such doubts, the Pope enters into the papa dubius state, in which he is essentially incapable of formally exercising his authority and binding consciences, since that ability derives from the certainty of faith Catholics would have regarding his status.  So he goes into a "quarantine" state, as Father Chazal called it, until he's formally excised and materially ejected from the Church.  That is the thinking behind my "sededoubtist" position.  We are in this state of widespread positive doubt that renders him incapable of formally exercising authority, awaiting his ejection materially by the Church.

This is in fact the justification for the entire Traditional movement and apostolate.

My problem with this is how do you define "widespread doubt"?  You can't allow it (and I don't think theologians defined it) as "personal doubt".  The Church is a monarchy; She does not operate on whim, or mob rule or personal "feelings".  You have to define "widespread doubt" meaning that Cardinals, archbishops, bishops and priests start agreeing that there are problems.  And they start putting pressure on the men in rome to do something.

In our present times, the "dubia" is a good example of the hierarchy leading the process.  John Doe, in the middle of WV, can't say that his doubts about the pope matter (because they don't).  Doubts only start mattering if some level of authority (and training/education) of the clerical rank act together.  In our present time, many sedes take the "private interpretation" of the pope's status as a normal thing to do, when in fact, it is totally anti-catholic.  This is my main beef.

You got it right Pax. The fact that the conciliar popes have enjoyed "almost unanimous" acceptance is all that would be needed if the Church were a democracy, whereas "widespread doubt" actually means nothing at all, not even in a democracy. Even in a democracy, it would only mean something to those who do indeed doubt.   
 

The idea of universal acceptance has to do with the conclave results.  If person A is accepted the day he was elected, then he's the pope.  (Unless it comes out later that there were issues with the conclave).  It is wrong to base "universal acceptance" on a day to day or year to year basis.  Because the pope's status does not depend on his personal sanctity or lack thereof.  Was he elected legitimately or not? - this is the ONLY question which the "peaceful acceptance" principle can apply.  The Church is not a democracy where the status of the pope is good on Monday but by Thursday it is in doubt, based on the whim of the people and his popularity.

Correct. Universal Acceptance is decided once and for all shortly after an uncontested election and it proves the Man Elected is a Validly Elected Successor of St. Peter. That is all. The question of whether he may possibly become a heretic later (which is denied by some, but admitted by others) is a separate question. Also, it is not the acceptance of Laymen that counts, but primarily the Acceptance of the Teaching Church or the Hierarchy, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church. The laity are subordinate to their Shepherds and not their judges; of course the Church taught will follow the Teaching Church.

In Munificentissimus Deus defining the dogma of the Assumption, Pope Pius XII appeals to a similar principle to Universal Acceptance by the Hierarchy as a proof of doctrine, "But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God"(4) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions ... it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way ... Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof". It is clear, therefore, that when the OUM unanimously acknowledges something, it is certainly true.

Why?  Because he isn't universally accepted.

Well, ok. If you read the article, IHSV, Siscoe says he himself was one of those who first thought "Maybe Pope Benedict XVI still is Pope". But Siscoe says after more carefully studying the doctrine of universal acceptance, he now has no further doubts that Pope Francis is the Successor of St. Peter. Way back in Dec. 2004, Rev. Fr. Dominique Boulet had mentioned the same principle as applied to the "Pope Siri" thesis; "the most important reason why we must discard the "Pope Siri" theory is the fundamental principle that a peaceful acceptance of a pope by the Universal Church is the infallible sign and effect of a valid election. All theologians agree on that point." http://fsspx.com/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm

Even if the conclave results were not challenged, if the Church didn't recognize the electee as Catholic, there would be lacking the acceptance.

You need to add [Teaching] to your sentence. If the Teaching Church, i.e. the Hierarchy, the Cardinals, Roman Clergy, the Bishops and Ordinaries appointed by previous Popes didn't recognize the current Successor of St. Peter, that would be one thing. Can you prove that? It certainly appears they all did. That's why even Siscoe changed his opinion, "Before continuing, I should note that there was a time when I also had doubts, or at least questions, about the legitimacy of the Francis pontificate and was one of the first to raise the questions about Benedict’s abdication that are being widely discussed today.[1] But after studying the matter further, there is no doubt whatsoever that Benedict’s abdication was ratified by Christ, Who stripped him of the papal office and conferred it upon Francis on the day of his election." That is the right approach. It's not Siscoe's doubts but mainly the Hierarchy's Acceptance that counts here. 

Thus, Siscoe retracted his opinion and subjected himself to the judgment of the Church Teaching, indefectible in identifying Her Head. 

Also, if you're a 61 year sedevacantist/sededoubtist, first kindly identify where the Teaching Church, i.e. the OUM of the Church, is for us. 

I am happy Salza and Siscoe's book was approved by Society authorities; the work of Restoration lies before us. We need our principles right. The right approach is to work in the Church and for the Church. The TLM must return to Dioceses with the Hierarchy's Support. 

"Liturgy Guy" Brian Williams has some nice articles on some good fruits that have already come the last 10 years or so. In the next 2 to 3 decades, this work should be continued. Even with such great victories, I still believe and hope that Tradition's best days still lie before us.

"Preliminary studies by this author indicate that the TLM produces 7-8 times the number of Priestly and Religious vocations."https://liturgyguy.com/2019/02/24/national-survey-results-what-we-learned-about-latin-mass-attendees/

See also these articles on how the restoration of the TLM has been a great source of grace that helps Bishops in their dioceses and seminaries: "It is interesting to see where many of our seminarians are coming from by taking a closer look at which dioceses are fostering vocations to the priesthood ...Finally, we cannot be surprised by what we find where vocations are abundant. Faithful families. Strong orthodoxy. Beautiful liturgy, often in the Extraordinary Form. In many cases, the venerable practice of male only altar servers, specifically for the purpose of fostering vocations. And always we find people of prayer."  https://liturgyguy.com/2013/10/23/return-of-the-seminarians/

Widespread doubt does mean something, i'm not discounting the issues involved.  I'm only arguing that if one has a doubt or if a whole community, or diocese or an entire country has a doubt about something, this doubt does not give you a right to decide something on a personal/individual level.  This is anti-catholic thinking.

Agreed.

 A doubt is supposed to spur you to work with your bishop and other Church authorities to change the situation and to get rid of the doubt.  There has to be a process; an appeal to authority; not an individual or personal decision.

This is true, but since the idea is unanimous among Church authorities and (almost?) all the bishops, that whatever they say, so long as it is in unison with the pope, is infallible - and they all say the pope is the pope - there is no hope of NO authorities first inventing, then starting a process to depose the pope. Today there is the real danger that working with any of them is more likely to spin your head 180 degrees, than it is to help the situation.
 

My problem with this is how do you define "widespread doubt"?

Anything more than one or two crackpots who think the Pope might be a heretic.  You can find one of those during any papal reign.

But if significant numbers of Catholics begin questioning their orthodoxy, that's what is meant by "widespread doubt".  We CLEARLY have that in the case of Bergoglio.

In other words, I can't just wake up one morning, decide that a pope is a heretic, and then refuse submission.  But if significant numbers of Catholics begin to question him, then it's in a different category.

So let's say you lived in the Arian crisis ... where the majority of the hierarchy became Arians.  How do you take your objection against Arianism to your local Bishop, when he too is an Arian?  That's what we have here.

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 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.  

Absolutely.  We are in complete agreement here.  That's why I said that I like Father Chazal's "quarantine" term or lean sedeprivationist.  Sedeprivationism holds that they remain materially in office until the Church officially disposes otherwise.  In the meantime, they do not formally exercise any authority over us due to their heresy.  Sedeprivationism lines up exactly with what you're saying.  What's the alternative?  To hold our own lay conclave and elect Pope Michael I?