Not true.  That is merely your assertion, but I find it to be unfounded.  We've had long threads about this subject including quotations from theologians who disagree.  I in fact used to agree that this so-called ecclesia-vacantist argument was a legitimate criticism of sedevacantism ... but the theological sources provided by some of the sedevacantists caused me to change my mind.  I used to say that sedeprivationism solves this problem, but I no longer believe that it is a problem.

Huh?

You have citations from “theologians” who say the permanent vanishing of a hierarchy is really not fatal to the indefectibility of the Church??

Do tell!

Your question implies something that does not follow.

You are saying that someone who recognizes that Bergoglio is not a true pope automatically has the right to elect a new pope. This is false and sedevacantists do not believe this.

To answer your original question, the reason they do not elect a pope is because they do not have the power to do so.

By the way, sedevacantists don't deviate from the default setting of being Catholic by rejecting Bergoglio. The default setting of a Catholic is that he has to obey, and follow a pope and accept his teachings. Actually, this isn't a default setting, it's Catholic doctrine. Recognize and resist is a setting that was condemned before Vatican 2 when it was used by people like the Gallicans and Anglicans.

If I may add my own commentary to that quote, I'd like to point to number 3. Cajetan says that if the cardinals can't elect a pope, then the clergy of Rome do so, and if they can't, then the whole Church does so. Since we still have a "whole Church", then we still have the power to elect a pope. The idea that the power to elect another pope no longer exists if we have no pope or bishops with jurisdiction or Roman clergy doesn't seem to be compatible with that quote from Cajetan.

It is compelling that none of the authors that Fr. Cekada quotes ever said, "Well, it can't happen that all the bishops or clergy of Rome could ever fall into heresy because then the Church would have disappeared, which is impossible." No, they don't say that. They basically give a flow-chart in which you go down the hierarchy one step at at time, arriving at last at "the whole Church". And since the whole Church cannot defect (indefectibility), that means that option will always be available, and therefore is available today.

So it certainly doesn't seem like Cajetan believed that the college of bishops could never defect, or that the Roman clergy could never defect, since he discussed the possibility of it and provided a solution to how to elect a pope if that ever happened.

EDIT: typo

To answer your original question, the reason they do not elect a pope is because they do not have the power to do so.

Yeti, to put Matthew's point into practice, related to your last 2 posts...
.
The vast majority of sedes believe that point #2, where a V2 pope would convert, is an impossibility because they believe the moment he proclaims heresy that he has lost his office because a heretic is no longer a catholic, being outside the church.  This would mean that he could not “convert” and regain his office, as he would have to be re-elected again.  So #2 is an impossibility, per the logic of 99% of sedes.  
.
Point #1 is of Divine intervention and would only seem to be a solution if the other points not be possible.  So this can’t be relied upon being that point #3 is still possible.  
.
You say (in the quoted part above) that sedes believe they “don’t have the power” to elect a new pope?  Why not?
.
99% of sedes on this board (which corresponds to the the major arguments that I’ve run across in real life too) say that ALL the Cardinals in Rome are heretics.  So they have lost their offices and are no longer catholic nor able to elect a pope.  This goes also for the Roman clergy, since they also follow V2 and the new mass and are heretics.  Thus, all that’s left are the “whole church” to elect a new pope.  
.
So who makes up the “whole church” remnant?  It’s either sedes or the sspx of Tradition.  Well, the sspx has accepted V2, generally speaking, and they aren’t really Trads anymore.  Same thing for all indulters.  Who’s left but the Resistance and the sedes.  The Resistance are heretics (at least materially, according to sede logic) because they accept a heretic pope, so the inly group left in the “whole church” who is 100% orthodox is the sede movement.  This is point #3.   So why haven’t sedes elected a pope? Per point 3, they DO have the power. 

Yeti, to put Matthew's point into practice, related to your last 2 posts...
.
The vast majority of sedes believe that point #2, where a V2 pope would convert, is an impossibility because they believe the moment he proclaims heresy that he has lost his office because a heretic is no longer a catholic, being outside the church.  This would mean that he could not “convert” and regain his office, as he would have to be re-elected again.  So #2 is an impossibility, per the logic of 99% of sedes.  

Actually Pax, I think nearly all sedes believe that cuм ex is still in force, as such, even if they allowed for the pope converting, cuм ex denies him his office once he or any member of the hierarchy who deviated from the faith converts, the best they can hope for "is to be sentenced to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction".

So we have to completely cross out his option #2.

Yeti, there’s a 4th possibility.  The traditional Catholic clergy of Rome even if only a handful have the right and authority, absent the College of Cardinals to provide themselves with a bishop.  That seems to me the simplest solution.  I have no idea who are the traditional clergy of Rome.  But if they held an election, I don’t know how any traditional Catholics could justify refusing submission if the claimant is traditional Catholic and has valid orders.

This idea also fails per cuм ex, the only chance this has is if it is first proven to someone (the sedes?) that this ambiguous traditional clergy that supposedly exists in Rome never participated with, or ever said the new "mass", and were only always fully orthodox trads and never NOers or worse at any point in their lives.

Otherwise, they too fall into the cuм ex's "Anysoever who...shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy..." so the only thing they're good for is to be sequestered to a monastery for the rest of their lives.

Quote Sigh.  There must be a hierarchy, but there need not always be a hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction deriving from a Pope.

 Where did you learn this, Ladislaus?

Vatican I: "3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/first-vatican-council-1505

Pope St. Pius X: "43 Q. Of whom is the Teaching Church composed?
A. The Teaching Church is composed of all the Bishops, with the Roman Pontiff at their head, be they dispersed throughout the world or assembled together in Council."
The Teaching Church cannot defect, period. That is Christianity 101. There will always be a visible Apostolic Hierarchy in the Catholic Church.

Oath Against Modernism: " I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the Charism of Truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the Succession of the Episcopacy from the Apostles"

Successors of the Apostles are Bishops who have Succeeded to Episcopal Sees, viz Bishops with Teaching Office and Ordinary Jurisdiction.

Christ Himself would provide jurisdiction through the "color of title" ... according to the theologians cited.

Color of Title does not apply to a heretic anti-pope, although it could apply to a Catholic Anti-Pope. At any rate, this opinion is not held anymore after Pope Pius XII, the "last Pope" of the sedevacantists, expressly and word-for-word, precluded it. Christ does not confer ordinary jurisdiction on the Bishops except through the Supreme Pastor, the Vicar of Christ on Earth: "in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff."[13] 40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the Successor of Peter" http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html

In 1958, no less, the alleged year of the laughable supposed "interregnum" of the sede-vacantists.   It referenced two earlier Encyclicals. Here is Msgr. Fenton, and Cardinal Ottaviani, on that: "Prior to the issuance of this encyclical Catholic theologians had debated as to whether the residential bishops of the Catholic Church derived their power of jurisdiction immediately from Our Lord or from Him through the Roman Pontiff. In this docuмent, Pope Pius XII took occasion to speak of the Bishops' power of jurisdiction and he described it as something "which they receive directly (immediate) from the same Supreme Pontiff."[9] In the edition of his which came out after the issuance of the , Cardinal Ottaviani took occasion to state that this teaching, which had hitherto been considered up until this time as more probable, and even as common doctrine, must now be accepted as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII.[10]" https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/pope-pius-xii-and-the-theological-treatise-on-the-church-13700

God Bless, everyone.

In 1958, no less, the alleged year of the laughable supposed "interregnum" of the sede-vacantists.  

No, what is laughable is the claim by R&R that the Magiserium has become thoroughly corrupted for 60 years.  But then, you actually agree with this, since you don't think there's anything really wrong with Vatican II.  So not sure why you keep posting on this forum.  Your Traditional Catholicism reduces to little more than a preference for the Traditional smells and bells.  You attack both SVs and R&R.

You're a Gallican through and through. Anyway, I bumped the supposed other thread for you. Not sure what you intend to prove by it.

I explained my position above, which is not R&R: "That the Catholic Church is still standing after such a vicious attack from Her Communist enemies is a divine miracle; the Holy Father indeed had much to suffer, just like Our Lady of Fatima said he would. This explanation is not so-called "R&R" but could be called "RPWR" -Recognize, Pray, Work, Restore, and preserves the Papacy and Tradition."

the same principles can readily be applied to the current sedevacantist position.

Sede-vacantism word for word denies the dogma that there will be Perpetual Successors to St. Peter until the end of time; that is incompatible with an indefinite interregnum. When all Bishops appointed by the last Pope die, as they have, the Church loses Apostolicity. 

The Church also loses Her Romanitas, the Roman Centre of the Universal Church, when all Roman Clergy incardinated into the Church of Rome by the last Pope, also die. These things will happen when there are no Successors of St. Peter perpetually in an indefinite SV.