It is a real problem in fact, that so many traditional clergy men have failed to see that it is precisely thier faliure to denounce these imposture "Popes" that the crisis in the Church continues unabated.  

Many of us non-sedes do "call the Pope out" as you say but we remain loyal to his office.

1) The sede groups end up as personality cults. Do a little reading about the man in my avatar, Bishop Francis Schuckardt, or about the Palmarian Catholic Church in Spain, or a sicko named Richard Ibranyi.

2) Sedes splinter into many different groups, each one excommunicating and anathematizing the other, like Pentecostals, Baptists, and Methodists do.

ex cathedra[/i]]Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes ... whoever holds opposing or contrary views.

3) Scandals arise which no one has the authority to resolve, such as the situation we are seeing with the SGG in Ohio.

4) Sedevacantism is a dead-end mentality. The only way a Pope can be restored is if we are in the Last Days before the end of the world. If we are not in the final times now, then they are left adrift, with no mechanism for restoring the Church.

5)Sedevacantism is in and of itself a radical proposition. This radicalism grows and grows until it results in mentalities like those of some of the more vociferous posters on this forum, who accept no authority higher than their own consciences and their own private interpretations of Church docuмents. Since they can find no one to agree with them, and they believe, in the style of little kids on the playground that they will somehow get "cooties" from those who don't agree with them on every single point, they are unable to form a community of any kind and are cut off from the reception of the Sacraments and assistance at a Mass. The end result for them is increasing isolation, radicalism, and either mental illness or a lonely death in rebellion.

Many of us non-sedes do "call the Pope out" as you say but we remain loyal to his office.

The reason we do this is because we have seen too many times what happens to the sedes who break free from all control and try to govern themselves.

3) Scandals arise which no one has the authority to resolve, such as the situation we are seeing with the SGG in Ohio...

Quote from: St. Jude T

Many of us non-sedes do "call the Pope out" as you say but we remain loyal to his office.

This is not a Catholic idea. You separate the pope from his office in matters of faith and morals.

Quote

The reason we do this is because we have seen too many times what happens to the sedes who break free from all control and try to govern themselves.

SSPX is totally independent of the current claimant to the papacy. Hasn't the SSPX "splintered" too? Campos? St. John?
FSSP?

Quote from: SJB

This is not a Catholic idea. You separate the pope from his office in matters of faith and morals.

And you equate the sinful and fallible man who sits in Peter's Chair with the infallible office it represents. That is not very Catholic, is it? You reject various Popes and then declare that therefore the entire Church has defected and She and anyone who belongs to Her are now members of a different, non-Catholic religion. I am able to separate the office holders from the offices they hold, in the hopes that those offices will someday again be held by men worthy of them.

1. In what sense can the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff be said to be personal?  It is said to be personal in order to exclude in this way a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Church.  Indeed, infallibility is said to be personal in order thereby to exclude a distinction between the See and the one who holds the See.  Since this distinction did not acquire any patrons in the general congregations, I shall refrain from saying anything about it.  Therefore, having rejected the distinction between the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, between the See and the possessor of the See, that is, between the universal series and the individual Roman Pontiffs succeeding each other in this series, we defend the personal infallibility of the Roman Pontiff inasmuch as this prerogative belongs, by the promise of Christ, to each and every legitimate successor of Peter in his chair.
Having said this, the notion of papal infallibility is not yet sufficiently defined.  The personal infallibility of the Pope must be more accurately defined in itself in the following way: it does not belong to the Roman Pontiff inasmuch as he is a private person, nor even inasmuch as he is a private teacher, since, as such, he is equal with all other private teachers and, as Cajetan wisely noted, equal does not have power over equal, not such power as the Roman Pontiff exercises over the Church Universal.  Hence we do not speak about personal infallibility, although we do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Universal.  Indeed it should not be said that the Pontiff is infallible simply because of the authority of the papacy but rather inasmuch as he is certainly and undoubtedly subject to the direction of divine assistance.  By the authority of the papacy, the Pontiff is always the supreme judge in matters of faith and morals, and the father and teacher of all Christians. But the divine assistance promised to him, by which he cannot err, he only enjoys as such when he really and actually exercises his duty as supreme judge and universal teacher of the Church in disputes about the Faith.  Thus, the sentence "The Roman Pontiff is infallible" should not be treated as false, since Christ promised that infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgment, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal.

 2. In what sense can the infallibility of the Pope be said to be "separate"?  It is able to be called "separate," or rather distinct because it rests on a special promise of Christ and therefore on a special assistance of the Holy Spirit, which assistance is not one and the same with that which the whole body of the teaching Church enjoys when united with its head. For since Peter and his successor are the center of ecclesiastical unity, whose task it is to preserve the Church in a unity of faith and charity and to repair the Church when disturbed, his condition and his relation to the Church are completely special; and to this special and distinct condition corresponds a special and distinct privilege.  Therefore, in this sense there belongs to the Roman Pontiff a separate infallibility.  But in saying this we do not separate the Pontiff from his ordained union with the Church.  For the Pope is only infallible when, exercising his function as teacher of all Christians and therefore representing the whole Church, he judges and defines what must be believed or rejected by all. He is no more able to be separated from the universal Church than the foundation from the building it is destined to support.  Indeed we do not separate the Pope, defining, from the cooperation and consent of the Church, at least in the sense that we do not exclude this cooperation and this consent of the Church.  This is clear from the purpose for which this prerogative has been divinely granted.

The purpose of this prerogative is the preservation of truth in the Church.  The special exercise of this prerogative occurs when there arise somewhere in the Church scandals against the faith, i.e., dissensions and heresies which the bishops of the individual churches or even gathered together in provincial council are unable to repress so that they are forced to appeal to the Apostolic See regarding the case, or when the bishops themselves are infected by the sad stain of error.  And thereby we do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance.  Therefore the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth.  These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc.  Indeed, the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment.

Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail.  For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion, as the Synod of Pistoia held.