Cf. quote from Archbishop Lefebvre and also Catholic dogma (with which you should be well acquainted) that there can be no salvation without subjection to the Holy Father.

In a sense, it's correct that the final disposition of Bergoglio does't matter, but what does matter is this wretched non-Catholic ecclesiology you've developed  Are you adhering to actual Roman Catholicism or are you basically an Old Catholic?  So it SHOULD matter to you, because since your eternal salvation is on the line as you clearly veer into the latter category.

Nope, it does not matter to either of us, you should have quoted the rest of my post.

I am subject to the pope, but God first. It's not the least bit complicated and is summed up beautifully in my sig.

So far we have Stubborn's "I don't really care." (since being in Communion with the Catholic hierarchy doesn't matter) ... but nothing else.

Waiting for someone from R&R to explain what's unacceptable about Father Chazal's position.

Hi Ladislaus, I myself am open to Fr. Chazal's thesis. Can you please explain what it is? Is it to say that these vatican 2 popes don't have any authority because of their manifest heresies, but that they remain Pope? Some would say that this contradicts vatican 1. Would this also mean that any act by Francis that is for the common good, would be supplied the jurisdiction?

I'll answer briefly:

1. It's above my pay grade. I.e., not required to save my soul. We're talking about the Crisis in the Church, NOT the Catholic Faith. So yeah, "I don't know", "leave me alone", or even "I don't care" is a valid answer.

2. The default position for a Catholic is not to declare the See vacant, but rather to assume validity. In this way, the Sede position is NOT equivalent to the R&R position, nor is it the "inverse" or a perfect mirror image of some sort. As I've said so many times, the Sede position is like taking an EXIT RAMP from the highway -- the default position is to keep going straight -- to accept that the Pope is Pope. Sedes might like to pretend it's a T-intersection, where some go to the right, others go to the left, and therefore the "move" of R&R and Sedes is of equal fundamental nature. BUT IT IS NOT. By default, we have a Pope. Taking the position the Pope is not Pope is a POSITIVE MOVE. We are not making a POSITIVE MOVE to declare the Pope is Pope, we are actually doing NOTHING. See the difference?

3. However, when the Pope is acting like the last several, one MUST disobey rather than commit sin or lose the Faith. In other words, I do the bare-minimum necessary to keep my Faith intact. That is what +Lefebvre did, and what I think is the most Catholic, safest, most prudent course of action.

4. What the actual truth about the Pope turns out to be? God knows. I sure don't. But at least I won't be punished for calling the Pope names, being uncharitable, burning effigies of the Pope, etc. In short, I'll have nothing to apologize for. God certainly expects me, at this time, to NOT follow the current Popes into Hell itself. End of list. He does NOT expect me to dis-entangle or solve the Crisis in the Church. Give me a break!

5. I'm not dissing or even rejecting Fr. Chazal's position. I just don't have A) the training or B) the objective knowledge of the situation to know if it's correct or not.

6. We shouldn't get the mindset that we need to be wearing the right jersey (having the right opinion on every nuance of the Crisis) to save our soul. Even if I was fervently excited about Fr. Chazal's writings, then what? I still have to choose from the AVAILABLE positions that offer Mass in my country. I can't try to search the world over for a person exactly like myself, who shares all my opinions on the Crisis, denouncing everyone else as a heretic. That's how you end up with cults like the Dimond Bros. or Pfeifferville. Or how to end up very alone, probably despair, and ultimately to lose one's very soul for eternity.

7. There IS a solution to the Crisis in the Church. But given the unsolved-nature of the mystery as of 2022 (around Year 57 of the Crisis) you'll cut me some slack, and admit I'm not crazy for being of the opinion that this Crisis is akin to a supernatural mystery, which mankind cannot solve with his powers of reason and "current available information" alone.

8. It's just my opinion, but if I'm wrong then the ONLY OTHER OPTION is that the Crisis HAS been adequately solved (in a definitive manner, with all objections adequately answered and addressed) but that all the other "positions" are populated 100% by those of bad will. I don't buy that.

Yikes, what??! This is not and has not ever been a Catholic principle at all. The pope is the Vicar of Christ!

Christ is the head of the Church, the pope is His vicar. When the pope goes bad, we are still first under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man, in this case, the pope. This is the most basic, necessary and highest of all the principles in the Church, one everyone should have learned as a young child.

But feel free to correct me, please tell us Yeti, how do the public mortal sins of the pope (heresy, apostacy, etc.) or imposter if that makes a difference, infringe, affect or in any way prohibit YOU from living a good Catholic life?

I don't expect you will answer, but maybe at least you might think about it for a minute.  

I agree that any version of R&R that says that the Church can promulgate poisonous rites or teachings is as much of a heresy as sedevacantism.

 

1. It's above my pay grade. I.e., not required to save my soul. We're talking about the Crisis in the Church, NOT the Catholic Faith. So yeah, "I don't know", "leave me alone", or even "I don't care" is a valid answer.

Actually, you are morally required to make judgments about what is Catholic doctrine and what is not.  Obviously, one's level of knowledge about the Church's teaching determines what judgments can be made.  But every Catholic should be able to recognize that worshiping a pagan idol (pachamama) is contrary to the doctrines of the Church.  It is a direct denial of one God in three persons (Holy Trinity).

2. The default position for a Catholic is not to declare the See vacant, but rather to assume validity. In this way, the Sede position is NOT equivalent to the R&R position, nor is it the "inverse" or a perfect mirror image of some sort. As I've said so many times, the Sede position is like taking an EXIT RAMP from the highway -- the default position is to keep going straight -- to accept that the Pope is Pope. Sedes might like to pretend it's a T-intersection, where some go to the right, others go to the left, and therefore the "move" of R&R and Sedes is of equal fundamental nature. BUT IT IS NOT. By default, we have a Pope. Taking the position the Pope is not Pope is a POSITIVE MOVE. We are not making a POSITIVE MOVE to declare the Pope is Pope, we are actually doing NOTHING. See the difference?

3. However, when the Pope is acting like the last several, one MUST disobey rather than commit sin or lose the Faith. In other words, I do the bare-minimum necessary to keep my Faith intact. That is what +Lefebvre did, and what I think is the most Catholic, safest, most prudent course of action.

So you can make a judgment that the "pope" is not worthy of your obedience but you can't make a judgment about why he is not worthy of your obedience?  It's not that hard to research the issue.  But SSPX or former SSPX people are generally programmed by the SSPX to not do any research concerning the pope question.  The only material you allow yourself to read are Angelus Press garbage like True or False Pope.  The author of that book is back in the Novus Ordo now.

5. I'm not dissing or even rejecting Fr. Chazal's position. I just don't have A) the training or B) the objective knowledge of the situation to know if it's correct or not.

But you were able to determine that the earth is flat without any formal training?  You can obtain the objective knowledge about the papacy at least as easily as you can obtain objective knowledge about the shape of the earth.

6. We shouldn't get the mindset that we need to be wearing the right jersey (having the right opinion on every nuance of the Crisis) to save our soul. Even if I was fervently excited about Fr. Chazal's writings, then what? I still have to choose from the AVAILABLE positions that offer Mass in my country. I can't try to search the world over for a person exactly like myself, who shares all my opinions on the Crisis, denouncing everyone else as a heretic. That's how you end up with cults like the Dimond Bros. or Pfeifferville. Or how to end up very alone, probably despair, and ultimately to lose one's very soul for eternity.

I don't know what criteria you are using to determine what a cult is but I'm pretty sure the same criteria could be used to make the case that you are in a cult.  MHFM (Dimond Bros) is a monastery.  They have no organization beyond their lone monastery in New York.  They don't actively recruit members to their monastery and they don't solicit donations.  Some men have entered their monastery and some people have donated to them.  But they have none of the characteristics of a non-Catholic cult.  So whatever false criteria you have used to classify them as a cult can be used against you who surely puts a collection plate out at your Masses and hopefully at least encourages people to attend.  It's surprising that you have the training and the objective knowledge to judge that MHFM is a cult but you don't have the training or knowledge to judge that Bergoglio is a heretic/apostate or that heretics cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church.

8. It's just my opinion, but if I'm wrong then the ONLY OTHER OPTION is that the Crisis HAS been adequately solved (in a definitive manner, with all objections adequately answered and addressed) but that all the other "positions" are populated 100% by those of bad will. I don't buy that.

That's an oversimplification of the sede position with regard to those who hold non-sede positions.  And it is irrelevant with regard to whether the sede position is the correct position or not.