To be honest, QVD, is it not you, rather, who needs to reconcile why the Archbishop so seriously considered the question of sedevacantism, yet never adopted that position and continued to advise against it? ABL even says here that he believes there is nothing worse that a Pope can do. Now that certainly demolishes the arguments of those who say "oh, but now things are so much worse, the Archbishop would certainly be a sede now"... just like Hank says above.

It seems both sides could say the same thing, so I don't think it's fair for you to point fingers at the sedes as if it never happens on the non-sede side.  All one needs to look at is the recent "Old Catholic" thread for proof of that...including name calling, false assertions, etc. 

I personally have always tried to refrain from false assertions and the name-calling whether it's just a rude name or names like "heretic" or "schismatic" (although I'm sure I'm not completely innocent in that regard).  Having said that, I think it's reasonable for someone to write that they believe someone holds "heretical beliefs" or is "objectively schismatic" without that being considered name calling.

And while I'm at it, I am still disturbed that you have not retracted your accusation that Bishop Pivarunas lied about the cuм Ex footnote in the 1917 CCL. 

No, I’ll pass. Although, the Archbishops was a great man, I never held him as a rule of faith as some posters on this forum seem to.

It is plainly evident from the Angelus article I posted that he was, at the very least, not opposed to sedevacantism, like you want your readers to believe. The Archbishop knew the principles involved and that a heretic could not be a pope, he was just waiting for evidence. Sadly, you want to spin his words to fit your narrative.

Yes.

"That heresy, apostasy, and schism.....according to their very nature constitute defection from the faith or from communion with the Church, and accordingly sever a man from the body of the Church by themselves, apart from any human law, and therefore without any judgment or censure by ecclesiastical authority, must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. It is plainly set forth and proven by Bellarmine that it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers interpreting scripture, that heresy in its very nature not only severs one from the Church, but also directly brings about the loss of ecclesiastical office before and even without any judgment of the Church; and being the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, it must be believed de fide."
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.)

Interesting…..

Now, can you please provide the quote from Saint Robert with reference.

But here are a few considerations from St Robert that should at least make us hesitate before lopping off the Pope's head:

Sure, but it's OK to lop off the head of the Catholic Church.  This is not about Jorge or his predecessors.  If Jorge were going around spewing heresy on his papal plane or in interviews with Scalfari, I could hardly care less and would let the Cardinals deal with him.

You keep quibbling about the "5 Opinions" when NONE of the 5 Opinions held that the Pope could become a heretic as Pope, i.e. that he could teach error to the Church.  They all discuss Pope "as private person".

More missing the forest for the trees, focusing on the "5 Opinions" (what Avrille called the a priori arguments for sedevacantism, but they're really a list of possible explanations for the how/why) and quibbling about the precise limits of infallibility.  Those are both distractions from the core problem which you keep dodging by continuing to bring everyone's focus down on the trees (into arguments that we'll never resolve here).

I keep trying to point out, "Look at the forest.  It's rotten." but you ignore that perspective and keep responding by saying, "No, look at this tree and that tree.  I see a piece of bark here."

PV, you've said "it is not in any way certain that a Pope cannot be a heretic and promote heresy through the Ordinary Magisterium."

And: "the Church has never made certain these teachings, whether it is regarding the magisterium, or the heretic pope..."

But Vatican I teaches the following:

"For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour."

And:

"this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples"

And:

"This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine"

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm