CathInfo.com

Quote from: Lover of Truth

So, I think all this talk about "opinion" is founded either on emotion and a false understanding of humility, or else on a lack of understanding of what constitutes certain knowledge vs. opinion.

Hardly. Many of those who reject sedevacantism reject it for theological reasons. You speak as if it was theologically certain that sedevacantim is true, some people just can't figure it out. The reality is that sedevacantist thesis has very serious problems, such as Apostolic Succession (according to SVs there are no more bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in posession of Episcopal sees - you have been destroyed recently in a discussion on that topic), inability to prove that V2 Popes were formal heretics (the most you can prove is material heresy), or the fact that there were heavy weight theologians who did not believe that a Pope formally loses office without any declaration immediately after becoming a heretic.

The Church teaches that we are to treat one who appears to be a public heretic as one as we only judge exteriors.  We are not called to judge the culpability or inner workings of their minds.  That should be obvious.  The distinction between formal and material does not have to be made as one who claims ecclesiastical office cannot use ignorance as an excuse and the Church teaches simply that a public or manifest offices cannot hold office and Divine Law tells us the same.  Apostolic succession is separate from whether the devil is the Pope or not.  The one is quite easy to see for those who are objective and accept divine law and Church teaching and canon law on the topic.

Perhaps you can start a thread on Apostolic succession.  I believe the hierarchy is where it appears to be, with the traditional Bishops.  With the ones who continued the Church, the ones who provide the Sacraments, Bishops and Priests, seminaries, schools for children, everything the Church has always provided.  History shows that Bishops have been consecrated and had ordinary jurisdiction during interegnums of the past having the tacit approval of the Holy See.  This historical fact cannot be denied.  

Show where we can accept a public heretic as Pope.

Show me where we do not have to submit to what he binds on the Church.

Neither of those are opinions whether you like it or not.

The Church teaches that we are to treat one who appears to be a public heretic as one as we only judge exteriors.  We are not called to judge the culpability or inner workings of their minds.  That should be obvious.

False.  The Church teaches no such thing ... not the way that you describe it.  Indeed the Church does not and cannot make judgment with regard to the internal forum, but even then the formality and pertinacity of heresy must be established in the external forum.

Pope teaches something questionable.
Catholics:  "Hey, that's heresy."
Pope:  "No it's not."
Imperfect Council:  "Yes it's heresy."
Pope:  "Sorry, I recant."

never ceased to be pope

But just because some SV in his private judgment keeps asserting that something or another is heresy doesn't make is so.

Now if the Pope were to say:  "I know the Church teaches [such-and-such a dogma], but I don't believe it anyway." -- that there would invoke the St. Robert Bellarmine scenario.  But if a Pope disputes that what he believes is heretical, relying on some distinction or hermeneutic of continuity that would make the position tenable, that actually suggests that he cares about whether or not his teaching contradicts Tradition and is therefore likely not a formal heretic.  He would then need to be rebuked (by proper authority, and not just LoT) and given a chance to recant before pertinacity would be established even in the public forum.

Indeed the Church does not and cannot make judgment with regard to the internal forum, but even then the formality and pertinacity of heresy must be established in the external forum.

The internal forum includes whatever is confessed in the confessional.  So the Church does make judgements in the internal forum. cf. "Parish priests, therefore, are not ordinaries, though they have jurisdiction in the internal forum" - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11284b.htm

1. Pope teaches something questionable.
2. Catholics:  "Hey, that's heresy."
3. Pope:  "No it's not."
4. Imperfect Council:  "Yes it's heresy."
5. Pope:  "Sorry, I recant."

never ceased to be pope

4 is improbable and would effectively be a challenge to the Church's doctrine that the Pope alone has full and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church.  I could only see an imperfect council forming in the event that there was probable cause to conclude that the pope had lost his office due to heresy.  Any other imperfect council would be a direct challenge to the authority of the pope.  Something which I'm sure the modernists would revel in.  So 4 ought to have one and only one conclusion, either that man in white cassock is the pope or he is not.  Any other statement or conclusion would be a challenge to the pope's authority.

Now if the Pope were to say:  "I know the Church teaches [such-and-such a dogma], but I don't believe it anyway." -- that there would invoke the St. Robert Bellarmine scenario.  But if a Pope disputes that what he believes is heretical, relying on some distinction or hermeneutic of continuity that would make the position tenable, that actually suggests that he cares about whether or not his teaching contradicts Tradition and is therefore likely not a formal heretic.  He would then need to be rebuked (by proper authority, and not just LoT) and given a chance to recant before pertinacity would be established even in the public forum.

So we should let criminals skate if they argue that what they did isn't a crime?  Right.

Oh wait, it sounds like you are taking it one step further, we should not even charge a criminal with a crime if he argues that what he did is not a crime.  Kind of like what happened with Hillary Clinton and the illegal email server.