When you write "any jurisdiction", are you including "ordinary jurisdiction", in that you hold that a heretical pope can have "ordinary jurisdiction" in principle?

Does a heretic pope retain ordinary jurisdiction?

Sorry, this was a small error, I meant "in potency" (from potency / act), not "in principle". Yes, my position is that a materially heretical pope remains a true pope in potency, but his authority is not binding in act when he commands something contrary to the Faith. Holding that a heretical pope is still a true pope and has the potency to exercise ordinary jurisdiction is not a problem if you understand what "jurisdiction" and "authority" mean.

First - and I cannot stress this enough - "jurisdiction" is not an abstract, absolute power. It comes from the Latin juris dicere, which means "to speak the law" or more accurately, "to speak what is right". It is the authority to teach, govern, and sanctify in the name of the Church. Therefore, if a pope "speaks wrong" in a command that contradicts divine or traditional law, he is not "speaking right," and at that moment (in act), his juris dicere is null. The command is not binding.

Now "authority" (to t/g/s) is always connected to the purpose of said authority: To hand down and preserve the faith of the apostles. That is why the pope has authority in the first place. If you read St. Pius X. he acts like a father, not like a despot. He even collaborates with the bishops, asks them for input on what would be best and then says thing like "yeah the calender is a problem, with a lot of input from abc we've reformed the calendar because xyz reasons". So there's no reason not to obey: I can get the point, even if I personally think it's not great, the authority is clearly for the better promotion of the faith.

With Paul VI and onwards, the purpose is no longer the promotion of the Catholic faith, but the religion of man: Man as his own end-goal (Gaudium et Spes 12, literal blasphemy) and "self-fulfillment" at the top of the hierarchy of needs (Abraham Maslow was a Jew btw, no wonder his "hierarchy of needs" gets taught in every school). So, the pope at this point, following this new ideology, still is a true pope and has his powers (in potency), but because his commands no longer serve the purpose of the authority, I am very free to disobey in act, until he comes back.

So now, let's look at what this practically means. The vast majority of papal actions fall under ordinary jurisdiction, which is the day-to-day running of the Church. Obedience here should be the norm, but it is not absolute. It can be withheld without sin or schism if one judges in conscience that a command is harmful to the Faith. This was confirmed to ABL when he was told Vatican II was only "pastorally binding".


Only the Pope's extraordinary jurisdiction (solemn, ex cathedra definitions meeting the four Vatican I conditions) demands absolute, unconditional obedience. To reject this is heresy.

Now, let's look at the pope's three powers:

1.  Power to Teach: A heretical pope has the potency to teach. When he teaches something wrong in a non-infallible docuмent (e.g., an encyclical stating that all religions are paths to God), he is scandalous and wrong before God. But since the teaching is not binding under extraordinary jurisdiction, his error doesn't depose him. I can just reject it, condemn it, and still go to heaven. His problem, not mine.

2.  Power to Sanctify: A heretical pope has the potency to regulate the sacred liturgy and sacraments for the universal Church. This is a core part of his power to sanctify. However, when he uses this power (in act) to promulgate the NOM, a rite with the purpose to harm the Catholic Faith and promote the religion of man, then that act is not binding, because the purpose of his authority is being subverted. Without a Catholic purpose, no Catholic authority (in practice / act, not in principle). Therefore, you can licitly resist this act by adhering to the traditional rites which are a proven and safe expression of the Faith.

3.  Power to Govern: So, this is the trickiest. A heretical pope has the potency to make laws and issue punishments, including excommunication. However, if he uses this governing power in act to punish those who are upholding Tradition (e.g., excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre), the act is an abuse of power. It is an act of injustice that lacks the backing authority because it is being used to destroy the Catholic Faith, not preserve it. A law or punishment that subverts the very purpose of the lawgiver (God, not the pope) is not a true law and is not binding.

So: where is the problem in saying a materially heretical pope still has "the power" (potency) to teach, govern, and sanctify? He holds the office, he is a true pope (in difference to de Lauriers Thesis, who has to invent some "the pope cannot accept his own election" nonsense). The fact that his acts are wrong does not negate the fact that he holds the office (at least until being disposed by a council of some sorts, because there would be utter chaos if everyone is allowed to dispose of the pope, etc. etc.).

I can go on about the "ipso facto loses the office" stuff (ipso facto quoad se vs. ipso facto quoad nos, see John of St. Thomas). But even if I consult no doctrinal manuals - it just makes sense that "until he's somehow visibly publicly disposed, I still regard him as the pope, at least sub conditione". 

I understand if Sedes are scandalized and don't want to name him in the Mass. But Sedeprivationism has to invent some weird "the pope cannot accept his own election because we can read his mind pre-election" workaround to justify why they separate matter / form, in order justify why he's not a pope at all (or a half-pope, not a true pope but still appointing true cardinals for some reason, yada yada). It's metaphysical nonsense although de Lauriers was a bright person otherwise. There is no matter without form, there is no "papal" election if the end goal is blocked from the get-go, can. 219 CIC completely obliterates SedePriv, etc. etc. I say that it's "an error", but it's not schism or anything. It's just wrong in terms of an academic exercise. 

The biggest problem with Sedes is that they often have the "choleric temperament", they are not necessarily bad people, but they want to solve the "pope problem" without fixing everything else first. I have the "melancholic temperament", which means I often overthink, but I rarely have a problem with rash actions. I have no problem with Sedes, but I do have a problem with extremely autistic annoying Sedes.

I agree with your temperament point.  Very valid.

Even if we had St. Pius XX. now on the throne of Peter, it would fix exactly nothing. People change their minds relatively slowly, you cannot just instantly go from modernist to trad in 0.1 seconds. It took almost 6 years for me to get to the position where I am today. We can indeed have a "Catholic society" without a "Catholic pope", but a Catholic pope without a Catholic society is 100% useless. Such a holy pope would stand alone on a soapbox, effectively.

Partially agree, in that many people would change slowly, on a personal level.  But I think you underestimate how many people would take to Tradition like 'duck to water'.  There's lot of followers in V2 and if a new guy comes along, they would follow him.  Also, a good pope would kick out the modernists from the start.  The church would be smaller (due to modernists and centrists leaving) but it would be much more effective, as the remnant would be on the same page.  Quality over quantity.

Then a good pope who starts laying down the law would get the attention of those would-be-converts who hesitated about joining the church due to liberalization, and (with God's graces) the conversions would be very great.

Also, the new holy pope would have a massive problem with a disobedient hierarchy. The Novus Ordo "priests" would just disobey immediately if the pope doesn't do what their modernist mind expects ("oh, St. Pius XX, you're so mean to people, you have to change, not the people"). Gaudium et Spes 12 perfectly defines their view as Man having Man as his terminal end-goal, not God. So, the priests are therefore just "pastoral" servants of Man, instead of servants of God. Everything else in the Novus Ordo is a "Folgefehler", as we say in German (a consequential error). On my math homework in school, I'd get 0.5 points on a Folgefehler with a red "(ff) !" note. So this is how I think about the Novus Ordo. As long as Man does not care about God and only cares about a "nice Sunday", "spiritual feeling" or "preserving cultural / historical value", the Church isn't going to come back.

A good pope would just draw lines in the sand.  Do x, y and z or you're excommunicated.  Hand in your stole and breviary, pick up your final paycheck, and you're gone.  As a monarch, he could do this.  The Church isn't a democracy.  As quick as the Modernists took over, the Church could be recovered.  That's the good/bad of a monarchy.

What should have happened in the 1960s was a world-wide boycott of all of these communist infiltrators. But boomers not only didn't care about Thomism, no, the actively supported the destruction of the Church (yes you can say they were lied to, but the boomers really, they loved the Novus Ordo, because most were already Protestant-in-spirit before the council). And after half a century of the Church being in complete "letting yourself go mode", most of the "priests" know or care so little about their own religion that they will defend the modernist principles (like NFP, democracy, etc. etc.), even if we had a holy pope. This new, holy pope would then have to immediately excommunicate 99% of these apostates and these Novus Ordo weaklings would just disobey and probably still occupy the Churches.

Yes, but V2 can't be blamed on the boomers, but their parents, the post-WW2 generation.  They are the ones who ushered in V2, took part in the drug-filled 60s and free love, etc.

My personal view, and I've discussed this with Bp. Stobnicki, is that the pope has jurisdiction in principle, but not necessarily in act (in difference to the matter-form separation of Guerard de Lauriers). So, I can hold that the guy is a "true pope" and I'd be canonically obliged to name him in the Canon if I'm a priest - yet doesn't have the juris dicere (the "right to speak" in the name of the Church) as long as he doesn't come back to the principles and teaching that the Church always held. Sedes make the logical error of "a heretical pope cannot have any jurisdiction in principle, therefore we 'know' that he isn't pope" and then they have the "judging the pope" problem. But this is just my personal view (Benevacantism) and at worst I'd say "sub conditione Papa Leone quattuordecim" and leave it up to God.

A grounded view which makes sense.

Sorry, this was a small error, I meant "in potency" (from potency / act), not "in principle". Yes, my position is that a materially heretical pope remains a true pope in potency, but his authority is not binding in act when he commands something contrary to the Faith. Holding that a heretical pope is still a true pope and has the potency to exercise ordinary jurisdiction is not a problem if you understand what "jurisdiction" and "authority" mean.

First - and I cannot stress this enough - "jurisdiction" is not an abstract, absolute power. It comes from the Latin juris dicere, which means "to speak the law" or more accurately, "to speak what is right". It is the authority to teach, govern, and sanctify in the name of the Church. Therefore, if a pope "speaks wrong" in a command that contradicts divine or traditional law, he is not "speaking right," and at that moment (in act), his juris dicere is null. The command is not binding.

Now "authority" (to t/g/s) is always connected to the purpose of said authority: To hand down and preserve the faith of the apostles. That is why the pope has authority in the first place. If you read St. Pius X. he acts like a father, not like a despot. He even collaborates with the bishops, asks them for input on what would be best and then says thing like "yeah the calender is a problem, with a lot of input from abc we've reformed the calendar because xyz reasons". So there's no reason not to obey: I can get the point, even if I personally think it's not great, the authority is clearly for the better promotion of the faith.

With Paul VI and onwards, the purpose is no longer the promotion of the Catholic faith, but the religion of man: Man as his own end-goal (Gaudium et Spes 12, literal blasphemy) and "self-fulfillment" at the top of the hierarchy of needs (Abraham Maslow was a Jew btw, no wonder his "hierarchy of needs" gets taught in every school). So, the pope at this point, following this new ideology, still is a true pope and has his powers (in potency), but because his commands no longer serve the purpose of the authority, I am very free to disobey in act, until he comes back.

So now, let's look at what this practically means. The vast majority of papal actions fall under ordinary jurisdiction, which is the day-to-day running of the Church. Obedience here should be the norm, but it is not absolute. It can be withheld without sin or schism if one judges in conscience that a command is harmful to the Faith. This was confirmed to ABL when he was told Vatican II was only "pastorally binding".


Only the Pope's extraordinary jurisdiction (solemn, ex cathedra definitions meeting the four Vatican I conditions) demands absolute, unconditional obedience. To reject this is heresy.

Now, let's look at the pope's three powers:

1.  Power to Teach: A heretical pope has the potency to teach. When he teaches something wrong in a non-infallible docuмent (e.g., an encyclical stating that all religions are paths to God), he is scandalous and wrong before God. But since the teaching is not binding under extraordinary jurisdiction, his error doesn't depose him. I can just reject it, condemn it, and still go to heaven. His problem, not mine.

2.  Power to Sanctify: A heretical pope has the potency to regulate the sacred liturgy and sacraments for the universal Church. This is a core part of his power to sanctify. However, when he uses this power (in act) to promulgate the NOM, a rite with the purpose to harm the Catholic Faith and promote the religion of man, then that act is not binding, because the purpose of his authority is being subverted. Without a Catholic purpose, no Catholic authority (in practice / act, not in principle). Therefore, you can licitly resist this act by adhering to the traditional rites which are a proven and safe expression of the Faith.

3.  Power to Govern: So, this is the trickiest. A heretical pope has the potency to make laws and issue punishments, including excommunication. However, if he uses this governing power in act to punish those who are upholding Tradition (e.g., excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre), the act is an abuse of power. It is an act of injustice that lacks the backing authority because it is being used to destroy the Catholic Faith, not preserve it. A law or punishment that subverts the very purpose of the lawgiver (God, not the pope) is not a true law and is not binding.

So: where is the problem in saying a materially heretical pope still has "the power" (potency) to teach, govern, and sanctify? He holds the office, he is a true pope (in difference to de Lauriers Thesis, who has to invent some "the pope cannot accept his own election" nonsense). The fact that his acts are wrong does not negate the fact that he holds the office (at least until being disposed by a council of some sorts, because there would be utter chaos if everyone is allowed to dispose of the pope, etc. etc.).

I can go on about the "ipso facto loses the office" stuff (ipso facto quoad se vs. ipso facto quoad nos, see John of St. Thomas). But even if I consult no doctrinal manuals - it just makes sense that "until he's somehow visibly publicly disposed, I still regard him as the pope, at least sub conditione".

I understand if Sedes are scandalized and don't want to name him in the Mass. But Sedeprivationism has to invent some weird "the pope cannot accept his own election because we can read his mind pre-election" workaround to justify why they separate matter / form, in order justify why he's not a pope at all (or a half-pope, not a true pope but still appointing true cardinals for some reason, yada yada). It's metaphysical nonsense although de Lauriers was a bright person otherwise. There is no matter without form, there is no "papal" election if the end goal is blocked from the get-go, can. 219 CIC completely obliterates SedePriv, etc. etc. I say that it's "an error", but it's not schism or anything. It's just wrong in terms of an academic exercise.

You have used the term "materially heretical pope".  This implies that he has not committed the public sin of heresy.  Therefore, he is still a pope in "act".  However, if he commits the public sin of heresy, he is no longer pope in "act".  As such, he has no power or authority to teach, govern, or sanctify.  

Fr. Hesse posed the question, what if I say that there is a pope, so I mention his name at my Masses, but when I die and go to my judgment, I see that he was not the pope.  How will I be judged?  Conversely, what if I deny that he is the pope, thus omitting his name at my Masses, and then discover at my judgment that he was indeed the pope.  What then? 

No, you can't just pick or choose which of his commands to obey because he's a material-only pope.

What you can do is consider him a papa dubius where, as a result, for all intents and purposes he lacks authority (per all the theologians), but then "hedge your bets" a bit by obeying him where you can ... just in case you're wrong (Bishop Sanborn's condemnation of Opninionism, as he called it, was 100% erroneous).

You need to at least have a papa dubius position in order to legitimately refuse submission and communion to the extent that Trads do.  Without at least a well founded doubt, the R&R position is schismatic and implicitly heretical.

R&R needs to become D&R = "Doubt & Resist".  Doubt suffices for Resistance.  Recognition does not ... that makes you a schismatic.

Newsflash:  Contrary to popular belief and R&R mythology, neither Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, nor Bishop Tissier were sedeplenists.  +Galaretta I know nothing about since I don't think I've seen 3 words either spoken or written by that man, who appears to be on perpetual siesta somewhere.

Here's why ...

Theologians generally hold the legitimacy of a Pope to be a DOGMATIC FACT.  That means it must be certain with the certainty of faith, i.e that you must be as certain that, say, Bergoglio is Pope as that God is Three Persons in One God.  If you aren't, then you're a sede-doubtist (a term I coined years ago here tongue-in-cheek), i.e. you hold that he's a papa dubius, which means that, for all intents and purposes, a papa nullus, and therefore he may be resisted.

Now, as you should know, it is heretical not only to deny but even to doubt a dogma, and a dogmatic fact is in this same category.

Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and Bishop Tissier have all in fact said on multiple occasions, and in fact quite consistently, that it's POSSIBLE that these men have not been popes.  That means they are NOT sedeplenists, but sede-doubtists.  Sorry to bust the bubble of the R&R who hide behind their false caricature of +Lefebvre.

In the early days, the explanation proferred by SSPX higher ups was that melior est conditio possidentis, which basically means that you have to give the office-holder the benefit of the doubt.  So that tacitly admits doubt.  Unfortunately, the maxim is misapplied, since the benefit goes AGAINST a doubtful pope, papa dubius papa nullus.  There is no "possession is nine tenths of the law" where it comes to papal legitimacy.  Why?  That's because if you can only be 95% certain that a certain man is the Pope, then if he defines a dogma, you can only be 95% certain that the dogma is true and guaranteed true.  95% certainty precludes certainty of faith, and therefore your acceptance of it as dogma.  But to a great extent, the SSPX have long admitted certain degrees of doubt about who these men were, following their founder.

It's only in later legacy, unfortunately because +Lefebvre didn't sufficiently clarify the necessary distinctions or do it with sufficient emphasis, you have a generation later a bunch of dogmatic R&R types, who are in fact mired in a heretical and schismatic ecclesiology.

R&R should be dumped in favor of the DOUBT & RESIST (D&R), which is actually a better description of +Lefebvre's position, and you obey what you can but only with the mindset of "since it does no harm, just in case I'm wrong ... why not."

I'm glad you asked.

1. Assuming the Pope is the Pope is the DEFAULT position. It is not turning left or right at a T intersection -- it's continuing on straight because you "don't know with enough certainty to get off at the exit". There is a DIFFERENCE between that and coming to a T in the road, where turning LEFT or RIGHT is equally "active" of a decision.

2. As for "getting it wrong", there is so much confusion touching on the Crisis, that there is 0% chance God is going to blame you. Let me put it another way. I, a sinful, limited human being, have the GOODNESS, DECENCY, and JUSTICE to give you the benefit of the doubt considering the high level of confusion and uncertainty in this Crisis in the Church. Don't you suppose God is superior to me in terms of goodness, decency, and justice?

3. God couldn't judge anyone harshly for getting the Crisis "wrong", because frankly He has not revealed the answer to the world yet. There is no overwhelming "answer" to this Crisis that everyone should be able to just see and embrace, with no weak points or unanswered questions. Good will, holiness, high education, and high intellect are NOT enough to find or discover such a "perfect" position on the Crisis. No such position exists right now. We're all forced to do our best.

The perfect position to hold during this crisis does exist, it was/is that position of the Holy prelate Archbishop Marvel Lefebvre.

I would argue that personally, but I acknowledge that it doesn't perfectly explain certain aspects of the Crisis, nor does it explain how it will be solved, etc. There is still plenty of room for mystery.

R&R is definitely a more conservative or "safe" position. But Sedevacantism is more clear-cut, simplistic.

Yes and Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist, in fact he, the three bishops and society prior to 2012 always condemned it. 
Bishop Williamsons Ridgefield letters are an absolute grace for our times, and he outlines it perfectly clear in multiple letters.