CathInfo.com

I find this phenomenon interesting.  When fr. cekada tries to smile, his face actually produces a frown.  

Quote from: Ladislaus

SVism is the ultimate "rut".  Why?  Because it solves nothing.

Catholic sedevacantists do not pretend to have, at this time, the "solution" to the problem.  However, the first step in finding a solution is to identify the problem, which they have done.

Anti-sedevacantists refuse even to admit of a problem or they seem to think that a heretic pope is just an inconvenience.

No, that's no so.

I'm anti-sedevacantist and I admit there is a problem - I also admit there is nothing I can do about it.  And no, a heretic pope(s) are not just an inconvenience, they have been a fact of life for at least the last +50 years and again, there is nothing anyone can do about it - or if I am wrong, what is there that can be done and who can do it?

The problem with SVism is that in most adherents, it becomes a syndrome, it keeps them from thinking clearly because every aspect of the faith and their salvation turns into an abnormal dependency of an empty Chair.

They believe popes cannot do what popes have done, hence they are not popes at all  -and if the SVs are correct, they will never in this world, know they are correct. And even if they are correct, there is still nothing they can do about it. And if they are correct, then they are correct and can boast that they were correct and that's about it. What a waste.

But if they are wrong, and chances actually are that they are wrong, then they place their eternity at risk, which is too high a risk for those of us who understand that there is nothing that can be done about a heretical pope or a heretical non-pope as the case might be. All we can do is everything we can to persevere in the faith in this crisis and let Our Lord to take care of it in His own time.

   

And no, a heretic pope(s) are not just an inconvenience, they have been a fact of life for at least the last +50 years and again, there is nothing anyone can do about it - or if I am wrong, what is there that can be done and who can do it?

It's interesting that you admit the Conciliar popes are heretics.  That would not be in line with most R&R (SSPX, etc) positions because most everyone (including Archbishop Lefebvre) understands that a heretic cannot hold an ecclesiastical office.  It used to be that the R&R could argue about formal vs. material heresy, etc.  But Francis has made it very difficult for the R&R folks because he continues to up the ante.  It was claimed that the only way to prove formal heresy was for the heretic to come out and say something like "I renounce membership in the Catholic Church" or "I know my position is heretical but I don't care".  With the latest revelation it is getting harder and harder to hold that Francis is not a formal heretic.  But if he is a formal heretic, Catholic doctrine is quite clear that he is incapable of holding an ecclesiastical office.  Lately, instead of saying that the Conciliar pope is not a heretic it has become popular to say that it is necessary for the Church's hierarchy to formally remove the heretic pope before any other member of the Church is permitted to say he is not the pope.  In response I quote James Larrabee:

It is also objected (by De Nantes and others) that some legal process is required, before the Pope actually loses office. This seems to imply the grave error of conciliarism. If a council, or any other authority in the Church below the papacy, can carry out a legal action resulting in the Pope's deposition, no matter how explained, it is clear that they are superior to him. Cajetan, who argued this, tried in vain to reconcile it with the Pope's supremacy (which he also firmly maintained). St. Robert Bellarmine refutes his arguments convincingly, and the arguments of John of St. Thomas, attempting to defend Cajetan, make little sense by comparison. (cf. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=59)

You can read the article if you want to know why SVs believe themselves justified in concluding that the Conciliar popes are not true popes.

Nishant has an interesting take on it as well.  He says that the universal acceptance of Francis' claim to the papacy is infallible evidence that he is not a formal heretic.  I prefer to take Francis at his word.