Your objections are refuted in the article (which you obviously didn’t read).

Why would you even post on here if you would only refer me to the article and not discuss the issue? I can likewise say, "You didn't read the article which refutes your position and get convinced on your own."

I'm open to reading your refutation on my points specifically.

Which is more or less saying:
“I’m going to waste everyone’s time by regurgitating arguments already refuted because I am too lazy to read a long article, but if nevertheless you refuse to spoon feed it back to me, I shall declare victory, and we can close the thread.”

Okay. I never said anything about spoon feeding, I simply wanted to see how you would apply what Bishop Tissier said specifically to the points I made, since Tissier vaguely, dishonestly and in one fell swoop brushes off the entire position of Sedevacantism.

Tissier incorrectly cited the (can. 209 of the Code of Canon law 1917) to state that the true Pope cannot be judged and that the magisterium is only "assisted if it has the intention to transmit the deposit of the faith and not profane novelties."

"We simply need to respond that “Prima sedes a nemine judicatur” and that by consequence, no authority can pronounce obstinacy, declaring the pertinacity of a sovereign Pontiff in error or deviance; and that on the other hand in case of doubt, the Church supplies at least the executive power of the apparent Pope (can. 209 of the Code of Canon law 1917). As for the magisterium it is only assisted if it has the intention to transmit the deposit of the faith and not profane novelties^{."(from the article)}

So in summary,

(1) You cannot judge the true pope and (2) Vatican II is not infallible since it only taught "profane novelties."
As to the first part, we read that it is entirely possible and even an obligation to acknowledge heresy. You see, if you "can't judge", it means you don't know whether the "pope" is teaching you to deny our Lord Jesus Christ. Meaning, you will follow that teaching...

Pope Paul IV, Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…

We read in the Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio that "even the Roman Pontiff" if he has "deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy" would be upon promotion become "null, void and worthless."

Furthermore, we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910;

"The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."
Wilhelm, Joseph. "Heresy." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 25 Sept. 2020 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm>.

Now, whether a pope is notoriously guilty of heresy is another argument because Tissier said that you can't even judge whether the pope is notorious or not... Tissier simply said you can never "pronounce obstinacy, declaring the pertinacity of a sovereign Pontiff in error or deviance" and if there is doubt, that only the "Church supplies at least the executive power of the apparent Pope."

Now, let's read another passage of Paul IV, from the same Bull.

Pope Paul IV, Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1.  In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”

Pope Paul IV stated that the application of "you can't judge" only applies to the true Pope, meaning the Pope necessarily must not be a heretic and have "deviated from the faith." Like I said before, if you claim "you can't judge" the authority due to it's authority, you are saying that the faith is below them. Meaning, the authority gets to mutate the principle articles of the faith, and you cannot reject them... This is insane. This illogical conclusion is what led to "tradcats" accepting the contradictions of the false "church".

Antipope Benedict XVI, rejecting Jesus Christ;

Benedict XVI, Milestones, 1998, pages 53-54: “I have ever more come to the realization that Judaism… and the Christian faith described in the New Testament are two ways of appropriating Israel’s Scriptures, two ways that, in the end, are both determined by the position one assumes with regard to the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.  The Scripture we today call Old Testament is in itself open to both ways…”

Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”

This is obscene heresy, and if "you can't judge it" then you must adhere to it. This is why ironically, anti-sedevacantists are actually the ones judging what "you can't judge." Like I said before in my previous post, if he's truly the pope, you cannot dissent from his teachings.

And in regards to Tissier saying that the magisterium is only infallible when it doesn't teach "profane novelties", it doesn't make sense. I posted before how the Antipopes taught that Vatican II was to be held as doctrinal and pastoral, binding on all the faithful. The content of the council was extremely pertinent to the faith, as is obvious from what is going on today among the "faithful". To say that Vatican II only taught novelties, meaning not "on faith or morals" as Pius IX declared at Vatican I, is totally dishonest.

Well that just goes to show the importance of correctly identifying the true Church of Christ.  If you get it wrong, you go to hell.  But if you are praying the Rosary every day and wearing the Brown Scapular and keeping the commandments, Our Lady will help you.

I mean I won't judge the internal forum, but I definitely think someone who decided Pius IX was an antipope would be at least materially schismatic.  But this is why I can't square any of the opinions.  On the one hand, the man who's universally recognized as the Pope is the Pope, period.  You're not supposed to question that.  And there seems to be a moral unanimity on that point, one Archbishop (and I think Lefebvre is the only one that really counts because the rest of them for better or worse never had ordinary jurisdiction and were only consecrated *because* of the crisis in the Church, for better or worse) sometimes having doubts (but even then, never concluding that the See was Vacant) doesn't seem to undermine moral unanimity.  On the other hand, these same bishops who are certain Francis (and his immediate predecessors) is the Pope are at least somewhat OK with Vatican II (on the conservative end maybe thinking its poorly worded, but not saying its like... necessarily a different religion), and the people who were certain V2 was a false religion at least seemed to have a bit of doubt about the conciliar claimants as well.  On the flip side it doesn't seem  that Vatican II fulfilled the standards for infallibility, but that doesn't necessarily mean a pastoral council that is *dangerous* to the faithful would fit the standards for infallibility.  On the other hand, even *if* you bought into FSSP style Hemeneutic of Continuity rather than R and R or sede, Vatican II is *still* dangerous because most interpretations of it are clearly contrary to the past.

I have no idea how to resolve this, so for the most part I've just come to the conclusion that an SSPX *type* position at least seems to have the most common sense, and excludes the fewest people who are legitimately trying to figure out what's right on such matters.  Well, maybe not conclusion.  Very tentative.

I try to focus more on the daily rosary than on resolving this TBH

As I go over these docuмents, It's incredible to see how the Popes prepared the faithful for what was to come. Here are some pretty pertinent citations from the Syllabus of Errors.

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. (CONDEMNED) — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.

This refutes the notion that you can ignore the "fallible church" which you judge and conclude you don't like. For instance when francis teaches that proselytism is the strongest venom and the "bishops" praise ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs!

23. Roman pontiffs and ecuмenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. (CONDEMNED) — Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

There's another condemnation regarding the ability to err when defining faith and morals, which Vatican II and antipopes claimed to do, and very obviously did.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- (CONDEMNED) -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.

This one is very great because it condemns the idea of "progress" and that there is a "hermeneutic of continuity". This is ridiculous, the faith does not change. Many try to explain away the dogmatic councils of the past in a way that directly reflects what Pius IX infallibly condemned here. There is no "modern way" of looking at things, this is nonsense.

Are you a newbie, Xenophon? So you follow MHFM. That is fair. I found out about tradition in part because of their website.

You should really consider the material I posted, I'm open to refutations.

The SSPX does not have a sound position at all... Think about it, Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated by a pope who he believed was valid and believed the excommunication was invalid. He rejected an ecuмenical Council which he held as valid. He rejected the Novus Ordo Missae which he believed was valid. This is why he was schismatic.

Also, how do you feel about the new rite of ordination? Do you know the SSPX accepts it as valid and that your priests could very well be ordained in the new rite, meaning, they aren't priests?

Did you also know the SSPX holds that people in other religions can be saved in that religion due to ignorance (paganism, Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, etc.)?

First of all, I personally believe the new rites are valid.  I realize most people here don't or at least have more doubts.

Second, I agree that those who die as visible members of false religions could be saved, as do *almost all* of the trad clergy including most sede clergy.

Which is really why the MHFM position is kind of absurd.  It leaves the church basically consisting of only laity at this point. 

Hilarious. Do they think the pope can also be the imam of a local mosque at the same time?

You raise an interesting point. In the future, when the one-world government, economy and religion are set up; it's entirely possible that the anti-pope will be the head of the New Order Religion and the head of all co-opted religions. All the mask-wearing morons will be on board.

Could you cite a source for that?

Sorry, no, I can't.