And....he did poo poo it ...because Paul VI wasn't speaking ex cathedra. No shocker there. 

Apparently, even Paul VI (the supposed true pope who approved each and every decree of the Council) doesn't know that Vatican II is not binding, not an Ecuмenical Council, not the Will of God, and must not be obeyed to be in communion with the legitimate successor of Peter and the Church. 

Only the R&R's know that.

I'll have to return to that at a later time.

But the point is ....the reason sedevacantists think the Vatican II popes are not popes does not have to do with "Papal Infallibility".

Let's not pretend that there is some unified sede-explanation for the crisis.  There isn't.  How many sedes have been on this site over the years?  At least 50 that i've encountered, and *almost* everyone of those 50 had a different reason for why/how the pope wasn't the pope.

Add in the many, many sedes i've encountered in real life and the explanations increase.

I'm not saying that these numerous explanations alter the theory of Sedeism (I lean towards it) but it's not a unified theory and it doesn't answer everything.  But the people who loudly claim the theory is unified and it does answer everything -- they are the problem.  They are running around calling every non-Sede a heretic; which is just as bad as +Fellay selling out the new-sspx to new-rome.  Both are crimes against catholicism. 

However, I have never encountered a sede that uses "Papal Infallibility"

The use of V2 as an argument, necessarily includes the argument that Papal Infallibility would've prevented a true pope from approving V2.  Ladislaus uses this argument all the time.  It's not a bad argument, but it's not 100% full-proof either.

Let's not pretend that there is some unified sede-explanation for the crisis.  There isn't.  How many sedes have been on this site over the years?  At least 50 that i've encountered, and *almost* everyone of those 50 had a different reason for why/how the pope wasn't the pope.

And I have said that I don't really care so much about the "why/how".  I only know that he's either not the Pope or is in a state of suspension (impounded) or deprived of office, or else somehow not freely exercising papal authority (e.g. blackmailed).  I know this because of the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Papacy precludes the Popes transforming the Church into an unrecognizable new religion that lacks the marks of the Catholic Church.

Either the Conciliar Church's theology, worship, etc. is reconcilable with Tradition (at least applying some hermeneutic of continuity) or else it could not have been created by legitimate papal authority.

If someone wanted to claim that Montini was drugged, put into a dungeon, and replaced by a big-eared crooked-nosed double ... well, more power to you.  Just don't tell me that a legitimate pope freely exercising his authority could corrupt the Catholic religion.

Yeah, I don't mind this approach and I understand it.  The problem is, not every Trad is able to operate in such a theoretical mindset.  They need more practical answers (which obviously don't exist).  Invariably, they get called 'heretics' for not being a sede, simply because they ask questions.  Rinse, wash, repeat.  It happens all the time on this site. 

The devil has pushed Traddom into 2 opposing camps (as he so often does on many issues).  The Sede camp is more theoretical, while the R&R is more practical.  Neither is 100% right, nor 100% wrong.  Both have good points and both have limitations.  It's an unsolvable problem.

Well, I do agree with part of the sentiments expressed by Matthew, where details regarding the why/how don't really matter.  It's not like we're going to "solve" the Crisis by understanding what exactly happened.  As +Vigano wrote, this situation is beyond human remedy.  Problem is that 99% of the Conciliar hierarchy are compromised, making barely a peep about Bergoglio's most serious heresies.  We had SOME bishops in Africa reject Bergoglio's latest blessing of sodomites, but you don't get much out of anyone regarding the core theological errors of Vatican II of the evils of the NOM, just an occasional mealy-mouthed weekly-worked "dubia" from a handful of Cardinals, only 1-2 of whom are still even "voting" Cardinals.  Bergoglio has stacked the deck, having created about 75% of the current Cardinals, due mostly to attrition from older Cardinals passing away or retiring or being blocked by law from voting in Conclaves.

I do think you exaggerate about sedevacantists calling people heretics for not being sede, simply because they ask questions.  Where the heresy comes in is in denying the indefectibility of the Church and claiming that the Papal Magisterium and the Mass of the Catholic Church can become corrupt, so much so that Catholics are require to break unity with the hierarchy to remain Catholic.  That is in fact heretical.

I don't understand why such R&R don't consider Fr. Chazal's sedeimpoundism.  Archbishop Lefebvre himself had a perfectly Catholic position, but it's been hijacked and misinterpreted.  +Lefebvre upheld the protection of the papacy by the Holy Ghost as precluding the destruction, but simply didn't commit to any particular explanation of the why/how of the matter.  But because he didn't commit to SVism (due to questions about the how/why), some modern R&R have hijacked him and tried to pretend that he denied the indefectibility of the Church and of the Papacy (which he never did).

Based on this site, it's no exaggeration.  This last week, i've seen the use of the word 'heretic' more than the last 6 months.

Again, no Trad disagrees with the above, in theory.  But in practice, it's difficult to explain, because...we Trads aren't the Church.

Where the disagreement comes in is on the definitions of 'indefectibility' and 'papal magisterium'.  Sedes argue as if the problem is easy to understand (but that's because they already have a pre-conceived solution).  R&R (not +Fellay's R&R, but +ABL's) see the complexities of these mysteries (since, ultimately, they are of Divine origin) and see the problem as more nuanced. 

Most sedes want a black-n-white answer to a complex problem, which is short-sighted.  ABL's style of R&R is an overly-complex answer to a complex problem...the evils of analysis paralysis.
This generation of Trads will never agree.  The divide between "The Nine" and the sspx/Resistance is too great.  It will take a Catholic pope, or some great persecution, to get people to come to their senses and work together.

Why do you keep referring to "The Nine"? About half of them are dead now.  And as far as the other half, is there really that great of a divide?  Is there a great divide between Fr Jenkins/other SSPV "Nine" priests and the SSPX?  I would argue that the SSPV priests have a greater divide with the Thuc groups. The SSPX can at least receive communion at a SSPV chapel.  

Why do you keep referring to "The Nine"? About half of them are dead now. 

You're missing the point.  The division between the Sedes and the ssxp/Resistance started with the Nine.  The Nine had issues and +ABL didn't address them properly.  So they split.


It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong (frankly, both sides could've handled it better)...what matters is that the division in Trad-land between Sedes and the sspx/resistance all had it roots in "The Nine" controversy.

Okay, sorry about the heretics!
But the sedevacantist argument from papal infallibility is certainly one that is used: a pope is infallible when teaching of faith and morals. The pope has taught heresy. Therefore he is not a true pope.
Do you want to give me a quick summary of your argument?
Have to go now sorry.

I did see your other apology re "heretics" - thank you. So, no need to repeat yourself.

I think if you read some of my recent posts, you'll have a better grasp of my "argument".  I honestly don't want to get into a back and forth on it though.  I've got much more pressing things to deal with right now which has sapped much of my energy.