Stubborn, can you provide a definition of "Religious Submission"
And contrast it with "Catholic Faith"?
Here is what Cardinal Franzelin says-
"The Holy Apostolic See, to whom the guarding of the Deposit has been committed, and on whom the duty and office of feeding the entire Church, unto the salvation of souls, has been laid, can prescribe theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones) as to be followed, or proscribe them as not to be followed, not only with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly by definitive sentence, but also without that intention, [but] with the need and the intention of exercising care, either simply or with specified qualifications, for the safety of Catholic doctrine. [ref. omitted] In this sort of declarations, even though there is not the infallible truth of the doctrine (because, ex hypothesi, there is not the intention of deciding this), but nevertheless, there is infallible safety [infallibilis securitas]. By safety, I mean both objective safety as to the doctrine so declared (either simply or with such and such qualifications), and subjective safety, to the extent that it is safe for all to embrace it, and it is not safe, nor can it be free from the violation of due submission toward the divinely constituted Magisterium, that they should refuse to embrace it."

In the context of this thread, "Religious Submission" simply put, is that we should have to obey the pope as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful.

Please note a few things in your quote from Cardinal Franzelin above;

1) Nowhere does he say or even imply what our responsibility is, so this quote cannot be used as your source for the statement you made - "The actual approach is that all the official Magisterial acts of the Papacy YOU OWE submission of mind and will". Please post your source.

2) He speaks of the duties of the Apostolic See, of which we are not debating.

Archbishop Lefebvre held the possibility that the popes were not true popes. We know that already. That's very different from what the Sedes think. They (you) are certain that Francis, for example, is not the Pope, isn't that correct? Sedes deal in certainties, in that everything has to be black-and-white. Yet Archbishop Lefebvre's position is not black-and-white.

I have a copy of Archbishop Lefebvre' book, "Open Letter to confused Catholics," published in 1986, two years before the consecrations of 1988, and twelve years after the quote you provided. In chapter XXl of the book, on page 176, +ABL writes:

"Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even the Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known with certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when the papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens in only a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by the Pope is infallible.

"Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul ll would not then have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those so-called "sede-vacantists."

"It has to be admitted that Paul Vl has posed a very serious problem for the consciences of the faithful. This pontiff has done more harm to the Church than the French Revolution. There are definite acts of his, such as his signature to Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis of the New Mass, and likewise to the Council's docuмents on Religious Liberty, that are scandalous. But it is not a simple problem to know whether or not a Pope can be a heretic. A good many theologians think he can be as a private teacher but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. We have to consider the degree to which the Pope intended to invoke his infallibility in such cases as I have quoted."

That's the difference between the SSPX and the Sedevacantists. The SSPX is devoted to the Archbishops interpretation and implementation of tradition, the sedevacantists are dedicated to the theological ramifications of consistent thought.
For example, there are actually three distinct elements that Can be treated in the loss of authority-
Excommunication
Deposition
Resignation
Now these three things are not the same. To be excommunicated is to be placed outside the Church by a legal act.
To be deposed means to be stripped of your faculties to exercise jurisdiction and celebrate the sacraments by a legal act.
To resign means to give up juridical authority either tacitly or actually.
Now, strictly speaking even a publicly heretical Pope is not excommunicated, because no competent authority has placed him outside the Church.
Neither is he deposed, because no competent authority had stripped him of his faculties.
Rather, what is recognized here is that through his PUBLIC and NOTORIOUS heresy, he no longer professes the Catholic faith and therefore tacitly he resigns his office. This means he has no juridical authority which he can exercise, he is a corpse in terms of authority.
What remains is for a competent authority to declare this and implement this should he not repent.
The question then becomes can inferiors recognize when superiors have abandoned their office?
Yes, and we have an example of this in the life of St. Hypatius who, after having been made aware of the preaching of Nestorius, refused to commemorate him in the liturgy, because he considered him to no longer be a Catholic bishop.
And his stance in this matter was vindicated by Pope. St. Celestine declared that from the moment that Nestorius had begun to preach heresy, all his juridical acts were invalid. He had no authority from that moment on, from the moment he became a public heretic.
This is all that Sedevacantists say about Francis and the other Popes- from the time they publicly espoused heresy and manifested it notoriously, they abdicated the throne tacitly and lost authority.
For that reason, they can be deposed.
 

Baloney. That's not the difference.

+ABL continued to live and preach the same living and true faith of the Apostles because, are you ready for this?.......the salvation of souls was his main concern and the salvation of souls is not now nor has it ever been even remotely dependent upon status of the pope.    

What good is sedevacantism?

The same good as a medical diagnosis.
For example, every time you eat chicken, your throats swells and you cough, but you yourself don't tie it to anything, and you still occasionally eat it because you like it anyway:
You go to a doctor and he diagnoses- "Hey you are allergic to chicken!"
Now even if you never got any anti-inflammatory medicine or anything, this diagnosis would still be an objective good because it is true and...are you ready?...you have a good reason to stop eating chicken!
What good is sedevacantism? If it is an accurate theological conclusion it tells you-
Cut from the Novus Ordo! Cut from Vatican II! Cut out the indult! Cut out the false Pope!
In terms of a solution to the lack of a Pope, that's different. But sedevacantism isn't looking for that solution, it is looking for how to survive the lack of one.
How is it good? As a diagnostic. That's how.

The same good as a medical diagnosis.
For example, every time you eat chicken, your throats swells and you cough, but you yourself don't tie it to anything, and you still occasionally eat it because you like it anyway:
You go to a doctor and he diagnoses- "Hey you are allergic to chicken!"
Now even if you never got any anti-inflammatory medicine or anything, this diagnosis would still be an objective good because it is true and...are you ready?...you have a good reason to stop eating chicken!
What good is sedevacantism? If it is an accurate theological conclusion it tells you-
Cut from the Novus Ordo! Cut from Vatican II! Cut out the indult! Cut out the false Pope!
In terms of a solution to the lack of a Pope, that's different. But sedevacantism isn't looking for that solution, it is looking for how to survive the lack of one.
How is it good? As a diagnostic. That's how.

Another load of baloney.

Sedevacantism is medicinal now? - but isn't looking for a cure Ha! Did you get this medicine online?  

And the purpose of the medicine that is being ingested is in fact not to cure anything but is actually ingested in order to survive whatever it is that ails you?  Amazing. They used to have a name for that medicine - they used to call it Snake Oil.

Let's see.....
Sedevacantists diagnose the Church is in a crisis because the pope is not the pope - check.

This is the "medicinal diagnosis".

Yes, yes of course, it is plain to see now what good is sedevacantism.

Amazing medicine you've been ingesting.

I sympathize with many of the sedevacantist arguments, but I don't think the position makes any more sense than the SSPX position really. Each position has its own problems. Sedevacantism basically teaches the the Pope and the Catholic Church have defected and become a false sect and now we cannot follow the Catholic Church anymore but instead we have to follow the sedevacantist priests and bishops who were never sent by the Catholic Church instead and these priests and bishops are now the Catholic Church. Of course even though what they promote is that the Catholic Church has defected and become a false sect, they say that the Catholic Church is indefectible and that only the sedevacantist position saves the indefectibility of the Church.

Of course they never say it like that.

Of course some sedevacantists argue that there must be some Bishops of the Catholic Church who did not defect and some priests of the diocese of Rome who did not defect, but nobody can name any of them.

I sympathize with many of the sedevacantist arguments, but I don't think the position makes any more sense than the SSPX position really. Each position has its own problems. Sedevacantism basically teaches the the Pope and the Catholic Church have defected and become a false sect and now we cannot follow the Catholic Church anymore but instead we have to follow the sedevacantist priests and bishops who were never sent by the Catholic Church instead and these priests and bishops are now the Catholic Church. Of course even though what they promote is that the Catholic Church has defected and become a false sect, they say that the Catholic Church is indefectible and that only the sedevacantist position saves the indefectibility of the Church.

Of course they never say it like that.

Of course some sedevacantists argue that there must be some Bishops of the Catholic Church who did not defect and some priests of the diocese of Rome who did not defect, but nobody can name any of them.

This is why we need to pray to God to resolve everything...  
If the apostles had known how our Lord's Crucifixion and Death were to be remedied by His Resurrection, they probably would have been at the foot of the Cross with Our Blessed Mother...
What we need to do it remain faithful to what we know to be true until God resolves everything...  Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later...  :)
 

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.


Bump. Here is the answer.

Truth is truth and lies are lies regardless of the pope's status. The pope's evilness does not change the truth into lies, nor does his virtuousness change lies into truths. Sedevacantism has no part in determining what the truth is and is not.

The problem / challenge / obligations we face these days is the same problem every individual has always faced since the time of the Apostles and will continue to face until the end of time; i.e. seeking Catholic truth and persevering in it. Since the time of the Apostles, this obligation is achievable only through the grace of God, not through the status of the pope.

And truth does indeed eradicate contradictions, but only when the truth as taught by Holy Mother the Church is wholly accepted. The truth must be believed and adhered too in it's entirety, if not, then contradiction to the truth is accepted as the truth, this is the case with sedevacantism.

If you actually believed what you wrote about truth, then sedevacantism can never be assumed to be true for the simple reason that in order to assume it is true, established and infallibly taught and defined truths must be rejected or ignored - and therein lies the contradiction which the truth does not eradicate because the truth is not wholly accepted so long as sedevacantism is assumed to be truth.

STUBBORN, you just confirm what I said, that the real, first, question is whether it is true, NOT whether it is good. Talking about whether it is good before talking about whether it is true is a reversal of logical order.

Ironic that you, the king of contradiction, would talk about contradictions as if you know what they are! Without the sedevacantist position a person just falls repeatedly into loads of contradictions, and denial of crucial doctrines about the papacy, infallibility and holiness of the Church of Christ.