In any case, I've never based the sedevacantist hypothesis on individual heresies of the papal claimants.  It's based on the same Major that Archbishop Lefebvre articulated, that this degree of systematic destruction is not compatible with the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the papacy and, though the papacy, the Church.

.
I'm not sure why people don't like to say that a public heretic can't be the pope when that is, according to St. Robert Bellarmine, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, but in any case both arguments you mention are each independently more than sufficient to prove that Bergoglio is not the pope. Which one a person prefers to use is really little more than a matter of aesthetics and personal taste.

Just put the dots together, people.  We're not talking about a statement here or there that might be ambiguous and interpreted heretically.  We have a new religion that has replaced the Catholic religion.  We have a new doctrinal system and a new form of worship.  This Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church.

Then add the dots that Cardinal Ciappi, having read the Third Secret, stated that it had to do with an apostasy that begins at the top, that Sister Lucy said that the Secret would become clearer by 1960 (what happened right about that time, eh?), that the Masons have been trying to infiltrate the papacy and that V2 had Masonic fingerprints all over it (liberte, egalite, fraternite).  One could go on for hours how ALL SIGNS POINT to the fact that the Church was infiltrated and taken over by enemy agents.  An enemy hath done this; it's very clear.

I can't see why R&R are in such utter denial over this.  It should be obvious to anyone with the Catholic faith that this is NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

All your arguments prove that there is NO TRUE POPE, the Church ( and my definition of Church excludes Vatican II).  The only victory of Vll is it successfully resulted in it being smaller.  The Church began small and perhaps it will remain small in numbers as God told us.

Well, the Perpetual Successors argument is not about numbers. It is about the dogmatic impossibility of going generations without a living Successor of Peter. Without Successors to St. Peter, the Church will eventually lose Successors to the Apostles, when every Bishop appointed by the last Pope dies. Thus the Church will lose Her Apostolicity and Her Four Marks.

That's the argument. You said "nor does it [the mainstream Church] contain the four Marks of the Church". So where are the 4 Marks? Where is Apostolicity in particular which, according to the CE, "virtually contains the other three marks"? https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm

Apostolicity, as Vatican I itself said, and theologians explain, requires the Power of Jurisdiction. Vatican I speaks of "that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops ... have succeeded to the place of the apostles" 
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/first-vatican-council-1505

Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction are exclusively present in the mainstream Church. Even those sedevacantists, who contrary to cuм Ex believe that false Popes can appoint Bishops to office, admit as much.

The sede bishops claim they were obliged to consecrate other bishops, because the "interregnum" was lasting too long. They would be even more obliged, if they really believed their theory, to elect a Pope so that he could appoint them to office. 

Here is a Pope explaining, as Walter said, what the Council of Trent declared: "the right of ordaining [consecrating] bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares ... this power of giving jurisdiction as a consequence of a new practice established now for several centuries and confirmed by general councils and even by concordats, has returned to its point of origin and does not belong in any way to metropolitans, but resides solely in the Apostolic See. So today the Pope as a duty of his office appoints bishops for each of the churches, and no lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See (Trent, session 24, chap. 1, de Reformat.)" From: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius06/p6charit.htm

I accept what you quoted from Fr. Haydock, that few will have faith when Christ returns. Do you agree with what Pope Bl. Pius IX said?

"Moved by your voices and your false opinions, it [the Church] asked of God that He announce to it the length of its days and it found that God said ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Here you will say: He spoke about us; we are as we will be until the end of the world. Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this Gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world." From: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9etsimu.htm

Since you mentioned number, Pope Bl. Pius IX said "in their doctrine, novelty, and number they show themselves in no way to be either old or Catholic"

The Church of Christ is Universal (Catholic). St. Augustine and St. Optatus point this out to the Donatists, who started a local schism.

Which sedevacantist sect represents the Universal Church? The SSPV or the CMRI? They hardly work together and even attack each other.

Meanwhile, there remains a Universal Church, visible to all, with 1.35 billion adherents, and over 5000 Bishops. There is the Church.

There are many problems in the Church today, as we experience the gravest crisis in history. Yet the Church is in all nations as the Pope said.

There were problems in the Donatists' time, and there were in Luther's time. But leaving the Apostolic Church has never been a solution.

I believe it is SVism that is NOT pleasing to God. SVism claims it keeps the Faith, but ends up denying various doctrines including Apostolicity.

It's SVism that requires us to become our own theologians, and declare Popes recognized by the Apostolic Church to not be Popes ...

God Bless.

Well, the Perpetual Successors argument is not about numbers. It is about the dogmatic impossibility of going generations without a living Successor of Peter. Without Successors to St. Peter, the Church will eventually lose Successors to the Apostles, when every Bishop appointed by the last Pope dies. Thus the Church will lose Her Apostolicity and Her Four Marks.

You keep repeating this assertion, as if merely repeating it makes it true, but it has in fact been debunked from every possible angle.

It's SVism that requires us to become our own theologians, and declare Popes recognized by the Apostolic Church to not be Popes ...

No, quite the contrary, it's R&R that requires people to become their own theologians, sifting the Magisterium, and determining for themselves which teachings of the Magisterium are true and which are false.

SVism on the other hand merely requires that someone recognize that this Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church.  As Vatican I taught, there's a role for reason in recognizing the motives of credibility and then giving assent to that authority in the first place.  We do not recognize the voice of the Shepherd in this Conciliar Abomination.  Meanwhile, R&R claim that, yes, this is the voice of the Shepherd, but we'll decide when it's speaking truth and when it's not.

No, WHAT we believe remains the same.  As Drew did, you conflate the object of faith with the rule of faith.  This term was clearly defined with citations from theologians that debunked Drew's fake definitions.

Dogmas/Doctrines are the WHAT of faith, whereas the authority of the Magisterium is the WHY.  Rule of Faith refers to the WHY, not the WHAT.

As St. Augustine wrote, "I would not accept the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to me."

No, his rule of faith, which are not only dogmas, but is also comprised of all the truths the Church has always taught, and will always teach, and will always remain the same forever. To reject any of them is to reject the rule of faith. It is the message that binds us, not the messenger. St. Augustine is correct, you are the one who has it wrong, popes are not the Church.
 

No, WHAT we believe remains the same.  As Drew did, you conflate the object of faith with the rule of faith.  This term was clearly defined with citations from theologians that debunked Drew's fake definitions.

Dogmas/Doctrines are the WHAT of faith, whereas the authority of the Magisterium is the WHY.  Rule of Faith refers to the WHY, not the WHAT.

As St. Augustine wrote, "I would not accept the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to me."

I'm not defending Drew but theologians do call dogmas/doctrines the rule of faith.  However, they distinguish between the living proximate rule of faith and the inanimate proximate rule of faith.

see https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm

But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living.

But I don't see where they are making any explicit distinction between dogmas/doctrines and the actual living possessors of ordinary jurisdiction.  It appears that the combination of the written dogmas and the living pope and bishops is all contained within the rule of faith.  It is unthinkable that they could be opposed to each other.  Therefore St Robert Bellarmine's explanation of the automatic loss of office in case of heresy/schism appears to be strengthened.  That's where Drew goes off the road.  He thinks that the living magisterium can be opposed to the dogmas and that when that happens it is his obligation to resist the living authorities.  But the SV position would say that they are no longer authorities and therefore there is no opposition between the living magisterium and the dogmas.  St Athanasius wasn't resisting the living magisterium, he was resisting heretics who left the Church.  If Drew was transported back to the 4th century, he'd be scolding the saint for not recognizing the heretic bishops as bishops of the Catholic Church.  John Salza claims that Joe Biden is still a Catholic in good standing while all sedes are ipso facto excommunicated from the Church.  That's how screwed up you get when you put the importance of maintaining a political/diplomatic position (e.g. SSPX position) over and above truth.

Yes, but on the very long thread with Drew, I cited theological texts which explained these these are the material objects of the faith, but what's actually mean is the authority of God revealing.  CE was speaking loosely and routinely drifted back and forth between the authority and the content.  Theologians actually distinguish the two.  Now, as St. Augustine famously said, even this authority of God revealing is known to us only because of the authority of the Church proposing it as having been revealed by God.

What R&R claim, in effect, is that dogmas are their proximate rule of faith, in that they can bypass the Magisterium and have a direct line to them ... no different than what Protestants do with Scripture, except they also add Tradition as a second source of Revelation.

No, R&R do not claim we that we can bypass the very magisterium (teachings) that is our rule of faith.