thanks for the reply
you did give me a good laugh though  when you wrote "professes the Catholic faith"
 I am interested to know if there are many others who believe in that statement

Subjectively that is; he intends to and he believes he does.

Yes, he was baptized and raised as a Catholic, professes the Catholic faith and has been neither excommunicated nor proclaimed as a heretic, objectively he is Catholic.
Subjectively, he has done many non-Catholic things which are at odds with his Catholicism and rob him of (subjective) moral authority.
But as it stands, the identity of the Pope is a matter of dogmatic fact, if the Church could fail to identify her head she would risk apostasy and the gates of Hell would prevail. In secondary matters such as dogmatic facts, the Church is also infallible.

Great post  :)

This is the 50th post in this thread and so far, no one has answered the question; "What good is sedevacantism?"

I would think a direct answer would start out something like one of these examples:

Sedevacantism is good because it ______________
or Good comes from sedevacantism by _______________

Actually, the principle is the opposite, "a doubtful pope is no pope". Look it up (papa dubius papa nullus)

Papa dubius Papa nullus is not a law or maxim, it is the opinion of some few saints and theologians who opined that for those having some doubts about the validity of a pope, regard him as no pope, might be absolved of schism. It does not mean he is no pope at all.


"What good is sedevacantism?"

Papa dubius Papa nullus is not a law or maxim, it is the opinion of some few saints and theologians who opined that for those having some doubts about the validity of a pope, regard him as no pope, might be absolved of schism. It does not mean he is no pope at all.

It's a principle. A true pope cannot have the characteristic of being doubtful, which is why all the papal claimants of the so-called Western Schism were obliged to drop their claims or else be schismatic.

Actually, the principle is the opposite, "a doubtful pope is no pope". Look it up (papa dubius papa nullus)

AH, the principle of doubt is not purely negative, but positive probable doubt.
Now, undoubtedly he has said and done things that are at least apparently contrary to the faith, but on the other hand he alternates these acts with Orthodox statements, for example that Christ cannot be properly worshipped or sought outside of the Church.
This kind of alternation is indicative of many plausible scenarios. Is the Pope mentally unstable? Is he possessed? Is he being drugged? Or are his notions of the faith not so much formally heretical as much as just badly formed?
And before you tell me even a material heretic cannot be a Pope and refer to Pope Pius XII, you have to understand the context of the term "Material Heretic."
A material heretic is not a person who pronounces heretical words, a material heretic is a person who finds themselves outside the communion of the Catholic Church and, through no fault of their own, finds themselves believing matter that has been objectively condemned as heresy.
In this sense a material heretic cannot be Pope, as in a person who is in good faith but outside the Church's communion is outside the pale as a Papal candidate.
Now, Francis is not a material heretic. He is a Catholic whose actions are proximate to heresy and are pending canonical correction and review.
Those fine distinctions and such... ;-)

Now, there is no positive probable doubt regarding his election, there is no positive probable doubt regarding his enthronement and there is no positive probable doubt regarding the submission of Cardinals nor his acceptance as Pope by the laity.

Therefore in the mind of the Church, which infallibly ascertains matters of dogmatic fact, he is Pope. YOUR job is to submit to the Church's recognition of that and accept that he, as Pope, has done what he has done.

As long as you understand that it does not mean he is not pope. IOW, regardless of how strong, your opinion alone or shared with millions, has no bearing whatsoever on the pope's validity.  

"What good is sedevacantism?"

what good is your opposite theory..in believing someone who odes not profess the Catholic faith is your pope..what good is it ?

The question, "What good is Sedevacantism?" is actually a secondary question.

The first question must be, "is it true?"

So, assuming it is true....
Of course it is good. God is Truth. Truth is good. Truth opposes error. We are obliged to seek and hold to the truth come what may, and to help eradicated error that are brothers are affected by. The truth eradicates contradictions. All of that is good and pleases God. Pleasing God is the meaning of life. Furthermore, when facing any problem, one must understand the problem first in order to expect a secure and lasting solution in the future, even if we don't know yet what that exactly is. Sedevacantism does all of this.....again, assuming it is true.