Myrna, as you know, I don't believe in post-1958-sedevacantism. But if I did believe even in post-2013-sedevacantism, e.g. if I believed Pope Francis was invalidly elected, I would be doing everything I could to urge the Cardinals and Bishops to take action to end the crisis.

If I had believed in post-1958 or 63-year-SVism up to the very point the last Pope Pius XII appointed Bishop died, I would have changed my opinion on it the moment he did.

How can it be otherwise? I know we will perhaps disagree, but to me the dogma of St. Peter's Perpetual Successors is incompatible with the idea of a sede vacante lasting indefinitely. And yet the idea of an indefinite sede vacante is what some SVs have seemingly resigned themselves to. I am only saying one's actions must be consistent with one's beliefs. If one believes in SVism, one must act accordingly. One must urge those who can Judge - the Bishops with Jurisdiction - to do so.

Can anyone show any example of a Church Doctor who envisioned 6+Popes for 60 years being heretics without the Church taking action? Whenever the Doctors discussed the possibility, they spoke of the Church taking action immєdιαtely - and certainly within the lifetime of the Pope. Not after 60+ years.

May God bless and guide us all as we discern how best to remain faithful to Him. May we all live and die as faithful Roman Catholics. Amen.

God is NOT pleased when someone like you comes along and objects to His flock who are trying to KEEP THE FAITH.   Where does it say, that we all have to become theologians these days, that we all must  know the answer to end this crisis; we must as God said, "WATCH AND PRAY."

Please show where the Church has ever taught that the Holy Ghost protects a Pope from teaching doctrinal or moral errors when he is not defining a doctrine ex cathedra, according to the precise conditions set forth in chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus.

Please show where the Church has ever taught that the Holy Ghost protects a Pope from teaching doctrinal or moral errors when he is not defining a doctrine ex cathedra, according to the precise conditions set forth in chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus.

In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy.

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained.

…[T]his sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith — Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be preserved, guarded and interpreted…. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

No, I'm simply trying to determine why he believes a Pope cannot err on matters of faith and morals when he is not defining a doctrine.  

And how do you think sedevacantists (and the SSPX) justify consecrating bishops without a papal mandate, when doing so is expressly forbidden in the 1917 Code of Canon law, and again later by Pius XII, who raised the penalty for doing so from suspension to excommunication?