If one is legally a Pope then they have papal authority by definition. Papal authority literally means the authority of the Pope. You cannot be a Pope without having papal authority, the two are tied.

Yes, but the authority of the Pope is inherently limited. Just read the docuмents of Vatican ONE. The pope doesn't have a blank check to create a new religion, for example. Nor can he order you to murder your parents. There are limits.

The recent popes have overstepped their authority. Ergo, our resistance to them is legitimate and praiseworthy.

Acknowledging the limits of an authority is NOT the same thing as denying that authority altogether!

If the papacy can be split between the material and spiritual offices (and that's debatable), then one can make the argument that Pope Francis holds the material office only, with his spiritual office being doubtful, due to his personal heresy.  If Pope Francis still holds the material office (and he AT LEAST holds the material office, since he has yet to be removed from it), then the papacy is not vacant.  If the papacy is not vacant, then one should pray for the pope at mass, seeing that his lack of spiritual office is due to himself alone, through his denial of the faith, and therefore, through prayers, he still has the opportunity to convert and regain his spiritual office.  Therefore, prayers at mass are still beneficial to him (in theory).

If one is a pure sedevacantist, they won't agree with the above, as they think there is no pope.  Yet since their theory can't be proven with certainty, it is not wrong for them (or anyone else) to pray for the pope either, since an "una cuм" mass can only be a sin if the Church has said so, and/or we know with certainty that pope x is a heretic, which obviously has not been decided ecclesiastically. 

Either way, an "una cuм" mass is not wrong.  It is never wrong to pray for someone at Mass, unless an authority has forbidden it (FYI...Fr Cekada is not an authority).

A Pope's authority does not extend to making up a new religion because once the Pope knowingly holds beliefs that go against Church dogma, he is a formal heretic and ergo from that moment forward not the Pope. St. Paul's resistance against St. Peter(if we are to assume it was St. Peter and not a different Peter, which would be odd as St. Peter had agreed with St. Paul on the issue previously) was different as St. Peter accepted the correction. Meaning his erroneous beliefs were material heresies at the very worst. Vatican 2 Popes have knowingly violated basic dogmas of the Church and have resisted correction. They are therefore formal heretics. And a formal heretic cannot be the Pope.


Rejecting a valid Pope's authority is schismatic on the level of the Orthodox.

So let it be written...so let it be done!
Thus declareth Lay-Pope Forlorn, this 8th day of April, the Year of Our Lord 2018.

"If any one disagree with this my opinion, let him be anathema."


Seriously, though, you can take your poorly formed, ignorant opinion and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Opinions are like armpits or other smelly parts of the body -- everyone has one, and they stink.

Besides, you're an ignoramus. "Resisting correction" doesn't make a material heretic into formal heretic. That's a simplistic, distorted explanation you might hear from uneducated laypeople, or an elementary school playground. 

As they say, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." You know just enough to be dangerous. You know the expression, "He read a book, now he considers himself an expert."? You read a book, remember its contents only in a hazy manner, forgot most of it, but then consider yourself an expert!

So let it be written...so let it be done!
Thus declareth Lay-Pope Forlorn, this 8th day of April, the Year of Our Lord 2018.

"If any one disagree with this my opinion, let him be anathema."


Seriously, though, you can take your poorly formed, ignorant opinion and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Opinions are like armpits or other smelly parts of the body -- everyone has one, and they stink.

Besides, you're an ignoramus. "Resisting correction" doesn't make a material heretic into formal heretic. That's a simplistic, distorted explanation you might hear from uneducated laypeople, or an elementary school playground.

As they say, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." You know just enough to be dangerous. You know the expression, "He read a book, now he considers himself an expert."? You read a book, remember its contents only in a hazy manner, forgot most of it, but then consider yourself an expert!

I don't know what exactly you're disagreeing with here. Was St. Peter a formal heretic and did he ever lose his Papacy? No, I think we can agree on that. Can a formal heretic be Pope? No, again we can agree on that. Can a Pope form a new religion? No, because that would be formal heresy and therefore he cannot be Pope. 
Do you disagree that the Pope is the Head of the Church and that we ought to obey him on matters of faith, provided they do not contradict existing dogma? Do you disagree that if a Pope fallibly preaches a material heresy that he should be corrected? Do you disagree that if a Pope continues to believe in a heresy despite learning it is a heresy, that he becomes a formal heretic? 
Please let me know where on the above you disagree. Otherwise, where is the room for "recognizing and resisting"?

Yes, but the authority of the Pope is inherently limited. Just read the docuмents of Vatican ONE. The pope doesn't have a blank check to create a new religion, for example. Nor can he order you to murder your parents. There are limits.

The recent popes have overstepped their authority. Ergo, our resistance to them is legitimate and praiseworthy.

Acknowledging the limits of an authority is NOT the same thing as denying that authority altogether!

By the same token wouldn’t you agree that there are limits to what a pope can do and remain pope or more precisely remain Catholic?

What I'm saying is that these priests must be tainted by Fr. Cekada's cooties.

No one had a problem before with including the Pope's name in the Canon of the Mass.

If you have doubts about the Pope's status, etc. it doesn't follow (or it didn't, before Fr. Cekada's novelty) that we must keep his name out just in case.

No, you KEEP THE NAME IN, just in case!

Actually, I have an interview made to Mons. Guerard Des Lauriers in the year of 1987 in which he says that the una cuм Masses have both the stain of sacrilege and the stain of schism. The reason he gives is that in the first place, because a heretic cannot be the Vicar of Christ, for Catholics to recognize the heretic and still include him in the canon as such, would be an error, and because the Mass is a sacred action, it should not contain any error or falsehood whatsoever. Secondly, he says that because in the Mass we pray in union with the Pope (una cuм), this union presupposes a submission to his authority (papa nostro), which he does not possess because he is in a state of capital schism, and according to the Cassisiacuм Thesis, not a true Pope.

However, Mons. still considers the una cuм Masses certainly valid (as long as the priest is valid) and does not condemn people who attend them, especially those who do it in ignorance or for very important reasons.

So evidently the concept was pre-Cekada.

The Church is a monarchy, which means the pope is pope until he dies/abdicates and he holds office by Divine right.  If you think a lay person or a few bishops/priests can decide that the pope has lost his office then you have falsely democratized the Church and declared a mutiny.  Your attitude towards the papacy shows your lack of understanding of what a monarchy represents in God’s eyes - which is a representation of His rule over the universe - absolute, independent and forever.  

The status of the pope isn’t an algebra formula, a logic exercise, or a court case where you present evidence and reach a “public” verdict.  Only Church officials can do that (and it's theoretical).  Did you know that in the Middle Ages it was a sacrilege if one tried to overthrow a king, because a king ruled by the doctrine of “divine right”?  How much worse is the sin to overthrow the ruler of God’s Church?

Those who would depose a pope through their own judgement or mob-style “group think”, challenge God's authority over His Church and effectively deny His Divine Providence in a prideful attempt to fix a Divine Institution through human means.  (As if that’s even possible!)

Nonsense. By that logic a Pope could convert to Islam and remain Pope. That simply is not the case. The Pope MUST be Catholic and he automatically loses his office when he embraces formal heresy. A Pope may be deposed or have his Papacy nullified post factum if he is found to be a formal heretic, but said judgement only makes it known to the world. The office itself is actually lost before any such judgement is made, the judgement only making it clear.

Of course, one must be careful about making any judgement of the Pope. Normally it should be left to the Church. But if absolutely nothing is being done about a Pope, or in fact a line of Popes, preaching heresies, then a Catholic is forced to use his or her own discretion to avoid following these heresies into damnation.