CathInfo.com

I agree indefectibility is a serious consideration that needs to be taken into account by all sides, but where sedevacantists err in this matter is in trying to use indefectibility in reverse, what you have justly syled modus tollens sedevacantism. Now, indefectibility was never meant to be applied in this manner and even the attempt to do so is heterodox.

I agree that one cannot use indefectibility for modus tollens sedevacantism.  I believe, however, that it can be used to establish positive doubt regarding the legitimacy of these popes.

Everything since the Council only requires the obsequium religiosum, and the Society renders this submission to the Roman authorities. The SSPX is not outside the communion of the Church.

I actually agree with you, AGAINST the SVs, that nothing clearly requires more than the obseqium religiosum since Vatican II.  But it just doesn't seem as if you're addressing Father Fenton's point.  At no point can Magisterium get so corrupted that Catholics must REFUSE submission to the Holy See and to the Magisterium because doing otherwise would cause harm to souls; in other words, nothing from the authentic Magisterium of the Holy See (in particular when it's addressed to the Universal Church) could EVER require the breaking of submission to the Holy See.

You have redefined obsequium religiosum (OR) here into the false lip-service "submission" that SSPX practices.  That's NOT what OR means.

(2) The right to critique the Council on points where it is shrouded in ambiguity or imprecision, which lead to error in practice, with Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching being the judge and criterion.

OR entitles Catholics to respectfully question of the Magisterium through the appropriate channels.  Lumen Gentium itself in fact reaffirms this, and this is exactly where +Fellay is going.  Where the Vatican has issues is in the open chest-thumping kind of rebellion ("We reject Vatican II.")

If you are having doubts or scruples about whether the Society and traditional Catholics who support it are in "full communion" with Rome,

There are no doubts or scruples involved, Nishant.  SSPX is in open rebellion to and clearly rejects the V2 Magisterium.  They conver the Sacraments, including those which require the power of the keys, i.e. jurisdiction, despite not having the jurisdiction to do so.  They offer Mass in the diocese of local ordinaries contrary to their wishes.  There's NOTHING that would qualify as canonical submission to the Holy See in the SSPX apostolate.

I'll comment more later, but you did not directly address Monsignor Fenton's post head on.

The Feeneyites posting here are desperate to prove Sedevacantism wrong, because if the Conciliar popes are not Popes, it means that Fr Feeney is still excommunicated.

From the pages of the American Ecclesiastical Review, December 1965,

Quote from: AER

Certainty of the Pope's Status

Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty ... This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty ... This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church's magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church.

Msgr. Gerardus Van Noort explains further some of the principles on which this teaching of the faith is based, applying it to the Supreme Pontiff of his day.

Quote from: Van Noort

“So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.”

For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession”

St.Alphonsus as well as Cardinal Billot, in treating the case of Pope Alexander VI, in addition to a host of others have also written about the same.

This evidently seems to pose a problem for sedevacantists in our day, who say Pope Benedict XVI is not the Pope, for the notion that we are currently in an interregnum would be self-refuting in light of this, especially considering that a mere moral unanimity suffices to establish the above. This renders sedevacantism rather untenable and what Cardinal Billot says also applies here, "

Quote from: Cardinal Billot

Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction"

That is, that the Pope is at best a material heretic, but not a formal one.

How do sedevacantists who are aware of and accept this Catholic principle deal with its implications to our situation today?

This is really a double-edged sword for the R&R folks.  If it is true that Pope Francis and the Conciliar hierarchy constitute the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church then you will have to explain how you can claim that they are proposing harmful liturgical rites and errors and heresies in official Church docuмents which are protected by the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.

Consider this:

MAJORITY INFALLIBLE. Since the bishops are infallible in their corporate capacity only, individual bishops may err at any time in regard to faith and morals, but all cannot fall into the same error at the same time.  The further question now arises: Can a majority of the bishops fall into error at one and the same time regarding a matter of faith or morals?  Or, to state the opposite side of the question: Is the agreement of a majority of the bishops of the world sufficient to establish the infallible truth of a doctrine, or must there be a practically unanimous agreement?  It seems most probable that the agreement of a majority is sufficient to insure the truth of any doctrine, for it would certainly be a great evil for the Church if the greater part of her teaching body could fall into error at any time.  It is true that in such a crisis the infallible authority of the Roman Pontiff would be sufficient to preserve the faith, but the Catholicity of the Church would be seriously affected, if not destroyed.  Besides, it can scarcely be admitted that Christ, in His wisdom would allow such a calamity to befall His Church.  But it may be objected that this very thing did happen at the councils of Arimini and Seleucia, in 359, when practically all the bishops of the West and many from the East signed an heretical formula of faith. An examination of the facts show that no defection from the faith really took place. ...

cf. E. Sylvester Berry, STD, The Church of Christ, 1955, p. 267-268