It seems to me that, regarding this discussion, the partisans of sede-vacantism should be more honest with their followers. Instead of presenting partial opinions of this or that Saint or Doctor as if they were definitive certainties, they should show their followers that the topic is a study in progress that will only be closed when the Church leaves the present day crisis and a good Pope gives a final word on the matter.

Concluding this Part I, we see that with regard to the consideration of the Church as divine, we must limit ourselves to saying that the conciliar Popes are heretics, without drawing definitive conclusions about the loss of their powers of jurisdiction and orders.

Is this really a good source on the issue?

Can someone who has published books in defense of and explaining a theological position really be trusted to present the issue fairly?

I don't even trust many sedevacantist writers and clergy for the same reason.

People with a reputation or livelihood to protect are not good sources.

Besides that, his arguement stinks and he doesn't understand the issues, it might work for simplistic people who just want a leader or those who have become cosy with their situation.

There's no question but that the heretical pope issue lies in the realm of disputed speculative theology.  That's why I've repeatedly said that my SV leanings have NOTHING to do with the personal state of the V2 Popes.

It has everything to do with the indefectibility of the Church, that a legitimate Pope and legitimate Council could not have done this to the Church.  Had V2 never happened, I wouldn't give two hoots about the incoherent ramblings of Francis Bergoglio.

Try to imagine for a minute that Vatican II never happened and Francis Bergoglio was going around making the kinds of statements he's making.  There would be no real sense of urgency to resolve this issue.  We'd continue going to the Traditional Mass at our local parish and upholding Traditional doctrine.  If we thought that Francis was getting out of line, we might petition our bishop and the curia for an investigation into Francis.  But at the end of the day the personal heresy or lack thereof would be of no practical importance to us.

From:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f052ht_S-Vacante.htm

Looking at Some Basics of Sede-Vacantism, by
Atila S. Guimarães


4. The ordinary Magisterium

When we have recourse to the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which as you may recall enjoys infallibility when it unanimously affirms the same teaching through the centuries, we do not find a uniform teaching with regard to a heretic Pope.

What we find is a theological discussion examining the question of a heretic Pope placed on the level of quaestio disputata [question open to discussion], that is, each theologian can express the opinion he wishes. These studies were already categorized by St. Robert Bellarmine into five basic opinions. The themes discussed include the following: Can the Pope be a heretic? Does the Pope lose the pontificate when he becomes a heretic? What if he were a secret heretic? What if he were a public heretic? Is it necessary for some ecclesiastical body to declare him a heretic for him to lose the pontificate or does he lose it automatically? If such declaration were made, would not this ecclesiastical body make itself superior to the Pope? If he is deposed automatically, at what moment does this take place? What happens to the Pope’s power of jurisdiction and orders when he is considered a heretic?

Bellarmine's only adds his opinion to a question still open to discussion

At the moment, what concerns me is not to make the list of responses to these questions,

but rather to emphasize that there has been no definitive teaching on the matter. The opinions of the various theologians are expressed strongly, but with humility, knowing that until the Church speaks, there is no definitive answer.

The important conclusion is that there is not unanimity of opinion among the theologians about what happens should a Pope fall into heresy.

Even if there were unanimity, this opinion still would not have infallibility. Infallibility resides only in the extraordinary pontifical teachings or in the ordinary pontifical teachings when unanimous, and also in episcopal teachings throughout the centuries when they are unanimous. Even if the opinion of the theologians were unanimous, it would have a non-definitive weight, but at the present stage of the discussion, even this weight cannot be given to it.

It seems to me that, regarding this discussion, the partisans of sede-vacantism should be more honest with their followers. Instead of presenting partial opinions of this or that Saint or Doctor as if they were definitive certainties, they should show their followers that the topic is a study in progress that will only be closed when the Church leaves the present day crisis and a good Pope gives a final word on the matter.

Concluding this Part I, we see that with regard to the consideration of the Church as divine, we must limit ourselves to saying that the conciliar Popes are heretics, without drawing definitive conclusions about the loss of their powers of jurisdiction and orders.

Quote from: Ladislaus

There's no question but that the heretical pope issue lies in the realm of disputed speculative theology.  That's why I've repeatedly said that my SV leanings have NOTHING to do with the personal state of the V2 Popes.

It has everything to do with the indefectibility of the Church, that a legitimate Pope and legitimate Council could not have done this to the Church.

Interestingly, non-sedevacantists rarely discuss this. The issue nearly always ends up in a debate about the heterodox claimants remaining pope.