You’re missing the point.  You owe respect to your father, even if he beats you, mistreats you or abandons the family.  There are 1,000s of stories where saints prayed for the humility to respect their superiors even when the superior was wrong or evil.

Respecting the papal office and the man who occupies it (even materially) is an obligation of every catholic, even while we have the duty to rebuke him for his errors and ignore his scandals.  This is not a new concept.  Look at how St Thomas More respectfully disagreed and tried to correct Henry VIII, even while Henry was tearing apart England with his antics.  

The prayers of the canon are an example of respect and prayers we owe the pope because the Church told us we should pray for him and it’s been part of the canon for centuries.  It has NOTHING to do with agreeing with the pope’s agenda, actions, encyclicals or anything specific. 

The "una cuм" debate is simply a way to take a theoretical position (sedevacantism) which only matters to theologians and professors and to make it matter in practical life, for normal everyday catholics.  It is an artificial solution created to "solve" the problem of a bad pope and a church in crisis (and it solves neither problem, but only creates MORE problems through division and bickering).  It is an exaggeration to the nth degree.

Sedevacantism need not go to such lengths to prove its point that the V2 church is wrong or that we must separate ourselves from it (these are readily apparent) .  Yet they seemingly cannot be satisfied with separating from new-rome and building churches and schools and all the good works they do.  It's as if they are restless and cannot be content with the current state of affairs and the blessings that God has given them to keep the Faith going.  It's as if they are continually looking for battles to fight, even if their current Traditional situation is a relatively peaceful one.  It's as if they cannot be satisfied and at peace until new-rome is gone and destroyed.  ...Every Trad longs for that day but that is up to God to decide.  In the meantime, make peace with the enemies (non-sede Trads) of your enemy (new rome) and turn your warrior spirit inwards, and conquer yourself, which is the hardest battle there is.

So, try answering my objection, XavierFem.

+Lefebvre has stated that it's not impossible that the Church will confirm that these men were not popes.  So how does +Lefebvre hold their papacy to be dogmatic fact?  If he considered it dogmatic fact, he could never make that statement.

Note that XavierFem babbled on incoherently for several paragraphs to get around answering this question.  So I reiterate it.

It's obvious that +Lefebvre did not consider the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants to be dogmatic fact.  Period.  End of story.  So Siscoe and XavierFem's battle is with +Lefebvre, and not me.

One theologian writing during the reign of Pope Pius XII wrote that it would be heretical to doubt the legitimacy of Pius XII.  So, according to XavierFem and Siscoe, Archbishop Lefebvre was a heretic for doubting the legitimacy of Paul VI (in the quotation I cited).

Well, I disagree with these scoundrels who call Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic  Lefebvre was not a heretic because the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimaints (IMO imposters) was/is NOT a dogmatic fact because it's not accepted peacefully by what remains of the Catholic Church.

They are not FORMAL heretics because they are arguing that their interpretation is orthodox.

Well, I think that Bergoglio has dropped that facade.  Now, one CAN be a formal heretic even while thinking that their position is orthodox and consistent with Tradition.  In fact, how many heretics do NOT think/believe that?  FORMAL heresy is not the same thing as "sincerity".  Many/most heretics appear to sincerely believe that what they hold is the truth.

But, regardless, I agree that we cannot definitely conclude that the V2 Papal claimants are illegitimate ... not with the requisite certainty of faith.  Only the Church can do that.  But there's plenty here to put them in the state of positive widespread doubt, and to be refused submission until the Church clarifies the matter.  It's why I coined the term "sededoubtist".

Well, I think that Bergoglio has dropped that facade.  Now, one CAN be a formal heretic even while thinking that their position is orthodox and consistent with Tradition.  In fact, how many heretics do NOT think/believe that?  FORMAL heresy is not the same thing as "sincerity".  Many/most heretics appear to sincerely believe that what they hold is the truth.

But, regardless, I agree that we cannot definitely conclude that the V2 Papal claimants are illegitimate ... not with the requisite certainty of faith.  Only the Church can do that.  But there's plenty here to put them in the state of positive widespread doubt, and to be refused submission until the Church clarifies the matter.  It's why I coined the term "sededoubtist".

I thought a formal heretic was someone who knew their position was non Catholic but holds to it anyway?  And that someone who believes they're holding to the Catholic doctrine but is wrong is only materially heretical?

What did I miss?

But more to the point-- regarding unity-- I see you are backpedaling from your initial claim that the office of the pope unites Catholics.

I'm not backpedaling.  The papal office is a unifying symbol because it represents the link to Apostolic times and the consistancy throughout the ages of doctrinal teaching and the reiteration of Divine Law.  A specific pope is only unifying because he discharges the office.  If the office is empty, then unity will eventually vanish.  The Church is only legitimate because her doctrines are unchanging, which is only possible with the protection of infallibility, which is not promised to a person, but to one who excercises the papal office.  A bad pope does not exercise the full papal office but only the material aspect since his spiritual capabilities are impaired through his own fault.

the pope is the principle of faith (and unity) because in this person... there are certain providential protections afforded which guarantee, a priori, the impossibility of certain errors.

Right, infallibility protects against error, when it's used.  Aside from this, in all other fallible matters, the pope can err.  There is no Church teaching which says that the pope is protected from error outside of infallibility.  At best, some theolgians argued his personal faith could not fail.  But many others argued that it could, including +Bellarmine.

That makes unity with him unity with Christ, and especially an assurance that one has the correct doctrine when one learns from him and obeys his laws.

This is an exaggeration of the pope's orthodoxy.  If it were true, then the 4 requirements for infallibility would not need to exist because the pope would, according to your understanding, be infallible 100% of the time.  Yet theologians have explained in great detail there are MULTIPLE levels of Church teaching, some infallible, some totally fallible and others in between.  It's not as simple as "Well, the pope said it, so I have to follow."  He can't say or command anything he wants.

In orthodox times, the Cardinals and Bishops would be the buffer between a quasi-heretic pope and the laity.  They would be the first to read encyclicals and bulls and other such official docuмents and if there were departures from orthodoxy then they would challenge/question the pope on it.  It's only in modern times (last 80s years) that is was even POSSIBLE for the pope to communicate with laity directly (since the invention of the radio).  Before that, he issued docuмents and it flowed from him down to bishops, then to priests, then to the laity.  So the laity was not necessarily hearing directly from the pope, but from their bishop and priests, whom they would trust, rightly so.  And these bishops and priests, all over the world, would be the "checks and balances" in the system, if any were needed, to appeal to rome for further answers.  But V2 was an infiltration where the bishops/priests were agents waiting to get the agenda from Paul VI and install the new program for the new religion.  The normal "checks and balances" were neutralized.

So the reality of traditional Catholicism today-- which is a very divisive reality-- is perfectly consistent with what one would expect in the absence of a pope.

Practically speaking, a bad pope is the same as no pope.  Division happens with there is either bad leadership or none.

You can criticize it for having no solutions but it isn't supposed to be a solution, and any sedevacantist who thinks otherwise should take a step back.  It's simply a description of the problem, and in my opinion an accurate one.

I don't criticize sedevacantism for its theory or goals, which are good (i.e. keep the Faith).  I criticize, very specifically, Fr Cekada's spirit of division in the "una cuм" controversy where he takes a theory and attempts to compel and coerce people to attend sede-only masses under the false and doctrinally-ridiculous idea that to say the pope's name in the canon is to be complicit in every heresy of the day, and consequently, to be in grave sin.  This is not the purpose of the prayer and i've seen first hand the splits in families, the turmoils, the divorces and other consternation which has resulted from the false and extreme zeal that people have for this "una cuм" lie.  By their fruits you shall know them and there are NO good fruits from the self-imposed, self-serving and self-authoritarian Cekada-doctrine of "una cuм".

If sedes would stop this particular nonsense, then i'd have no problem with them.  As it is, they create enemies where there need be none (i.e. other Trads).

First Catholics are united "through the office," next by the "faith," and now through a symbolic representation of Apostolic times... a modernist couldn't make it fuzzier, Pax.

The office represents more than one thing, Mith.  Why don’t you define it, if you’re so sure of its meaning.  Excuse me for saying “apostolic Times” when I should have said “apostolic succession”.  Potato, potatoe.  

Anyway, we’re off topic from the original thread.  My thoughts about the purpose of the papal office and unity are irrelevant anyway.  I don’t bind anyone to believe my way, as does Fr Cekada with his “una cuм” nonsense.  

I'll leave aside the conspiracy element for the moment.   Its likely the truth, but at the moment I'm trying to make sure I understand what a formal heretic is.

So say you tell someone their view is heretical.  And you show them church teaching.  And they just disagree with you, not because they on principle aren't willing to submit to whatever the Church teaches (indeed the person would believe whatever the Church teaches, if only they knew) but because they disagree with your interpretation of said Church teaching.  I'll use the whole feeneyite debate as a hypothetical for the sake of argument.  Say you quote someone the council of florence to argue for a feeneyite view of extra ecclesiam.  And say the person replies that, while he very much accepts the Council of Florence, he thinks Lefebvre (in allowing that souls who are outwardly identified with false religions nevertheless might truly belong to the soul of the Church without being formal members) can be saved.  Is this person a formal heretic, even though he still is holding his view because he believes it to be the teaching of the Church?

I was less getting at whether Bergoglio is actually in good faith (I have a hard time actually imagining it) and more about what constitutes lacking the formal motive of faith.  I was under the impression that someone who believes doctrines because they are taught by the Church, and holds them for that reason, isn't formally heretical even if he interprets church teaching incorrectly.