As was discussed on the other recent thread, it's a mortal sin against the Faith, to refuse to recognize, once one has full knowledge of dogmatic fact teaching, that Pope Benedict XVI truly was Pope in April 2005.
"Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.
This is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied."
That much is true, but that much and that much only. The above also means that sedes who reject His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI necessarily commit a mortal sin ipso facto in doing so. If God judged them as they presume rashly to judge God's Vicar, they would be "manifest heretics outside the Church" themselves. However much or little their subjective culpability may be, denying that Pope Benedict XVI was Pope in 2005 is objectively a mortal sin, and therefore, once known, should be explicitly confessed and repented of.
But by and for a similar reason, all can know, with solid certainty, Pope Francis surely was Pope in March 2013.
I am still inclined to endorse this opinion.
While having conceded the point regarding Archbishop Lefebvre and his tolerance of people privately entertaining the possibility of sedevacantism, the authority I spoke with was less certain on the matter of dogmatic facts and the pope.
I got the impression from his sudden interjection when I raised the issue that he himself had not yet internalized that issue, and when he said he would have to go back and study the manuals, it rather confirmed that opinion.
Yet, I also concede Ladislaus’s argument:
If in fact the identity of Francis (or JPII) is a dogmatic fact, and therefore binding, how could Archbishop Lefebvre say things which implied sedevacantism was a possibility here and now?
The authority I spoke with seemed to think -while still wanting to review, and not coming to a definitive judgment in the matter- that the theologians unanimously erred (ie., “they could not have foreseen the possibility of a crisis of this magnitude.”). Against this explanation is a quote from QVD in my apology/retraction thread which shows that at least one of them did.
My conclusion is that although I am persuaded by the unanimous consent argument, and cannot see how such consent could not have existed for the conciliar popes, nevertheless, I am uncomfortably trapped by Ladislaus’s observation, for which I have no good response:
If I say Francis’ papacy is not a dogmatic fact, I reject the unanimous opinion of minds much greater than mine, but if I say it is a dogmatic fact then I would appear to be at odds with Lefebvre (who I would have to acknowledge implicitly rejected a dogmatic fact by acknowledging the possibility of sedevacantism, and privately tolerating that opinion).
The only solutions I can conceive of (none of which are particularly persuasive) are:
1) There is some yet to be explained reason why the pre-conciliar popes were dogmatic facts, and the conciliar and post-conciliar popes were/are not;
2) Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong;
3) The unanimous consent of theologians was wrong.
I sense the solution lies somewhere within #1?