If you have not ever seen any sedevacantist deal seriously with this question, then you have not really studied the question.

On the contrary, the most astute have been reduced to making the weak assertion that there must be some bishop out there, somewhere with ordinary jurdisdiction.  The question is not tangential.  It is an essential problem that SV's simply ignore because their overriding opinion is so satisfying to their mind.  

I did not cite any specific heresy because this is a topic about women priests.  I do not allege that the entire hierarchy has fallen into heresy, only that the vast majority have done so.

This relates to my repeated requests for an SV to demonstrate their thesis.  Even supposing that you could cite a certain heresy found within his writings, it doesn't follow that one can conclude he is a pertinacious heretic.  This affects your minor premise and it seriously begs the question.  Asserting that the "vast majority" have fallen from the faith and are formally outside the Church is another blanket statement that lacks sufficient proof.  As you say, it ought to be a case by case basis, the presumption their legal authority (again no trifling matter) holds firm.  

You're amazed at the destruction of the faith and the Church from within.  So is any right thinking Catholic.  But to conclude therefrom that all are heretics is simply a logical fallacy that doesn't take into account other manifold causes and subjective dispositions.  You simply do not fully appreciate the Church considered as a visible society with external elements alone determining membership.  

 

There are still faithful Catholic priests and bishops within the Church.  Many of them are associated with the SSPX.  Others are associated with the CMRI.

 

Yes, within the Church, but lacking jurisdiction.  This is a fundamental problem and honest traditional Catholics recognize that they do not form the Church properly speaking.  The question thus remains, where and in whom does divine authority reside?  If you cannot answer this question, then you must rethink or refine your opinions, recognizing the importance of the notion of reserving judgment.  

There are, doubtless, other faithful Catholic clergy throughout the world in various associations as well as acting independently.

 

Again, with no original jurisdiction.  

There may even be some within the conciliar church.

Indeed, there are, otherwise, the Church would simply cease to exist as it would lack an essential element of its divine constitution.

Unlike you, I believe, ultimately, that the question must be answered on a case-by-case basis.

 

That's exactly correct, by those in authority.  You may venture opinions, you may even be correct on some particular case, but it remains your opinion nevertheless.  The inconsistency comes in where the SV claims that we have had no Pope for 50 years but refuses to extend this admission to the rest of the hierarchy, and as was said, a fortiori, for the determining factor is that they adhere to the errors of the conciliar Church, either explicitly or tacitly.  Errors that you claim are heresies that eject one from the Church.  So you must logically eject the rest on the same basis by which you eject the Pope.  

And even supposing there is some wandering Bishop who possesses original jurisdiction, this fact doesn't save your case, for no one could identify the Church itself and such jurisidiction does not flow from him, but immediately from the Pope, the very one you claim we have not had for fifty years.      

Since I am not an adequate judge for the whole world, I will limit my judgments to the few locations where I attend Mass and to those notorious public statements as was made by the cardinal in question.

 

And the Pope inclusive.  But neither you nor I are competent in such matters.  I make no judgments regarding persons, why do you?  It is a question of fact that contains many elements of which you are simply ignorant.  And your judgment as to what constitutes heresy is certainly inadequate.  Granted, obvious statements against the faith are easily ascertained, that is not really what we are dealing with generally speaking, when we review the writings of recent Popes.  In fact, I posit that one could detect no heresy strictly speaking in any official writings of the Popes, whereas individual Bishops issue certainly heretical statements.      

It is not my opinion that makes no sense, it is yours.  For it appears that it is your opinion that the man who holds, declares, and defends heresy is not, by that reason alone, a heretic.

First of all, you're begging the question.  Second of all, you're assuming that we are dealing with a real heresy.  One wonders if you've ever read theological treatises that report trained, expert theologians have disagreed as to what constitutes an heretical proposition.  Thirdly, your language is imprecise and sufficiently vague that you violate your own principles in determining.  But if you are speaking merely in theory, one could surmise that he is a faithless heretic, but until such a time that authority determines the nature of the case and refuses submission to authority, he retains the presumption of legal authority, unless by external action he indicates he no longer holds himself as a member of the external society of the Church.  

What you've failed to grasp is that we are dealing not primarily with heresy, but with a kind of diabolical disorientation wherein these judges and teachers of the faith are blinded to that which injures our religion.  There's a thousand errors of varying degree that infect the minds of Catholics.  We are dealing with spiritual blindness pertaining to spiritual sins.  We are dealing with new theories that, while not heretical in themselves, are destructive of the faith.  Suppose a man adopted every condemned proposition in Humani Generis.  He would certainly undermine Catholic doctrine, as Pope Pius XII's encyclical's title expresses, but would he thereby cease to be a Catholic?  According to the Pope, he would not, though he would be a Catholic infected with grave errors.  In Mortalium Animos, the Pope referred to certain Catholics who have fallen into those errors, errors which, in EFFECT, though not in INTENTION, destroy the supernatural foundations of our religion.  Pius IX referred to Catholics who had adopted poisonous errors of liberalism.  Pius X referred to enemies within the Church.  Pope Honorius was determined to be an Instrument of the Devil.  In your analysis of the situtation, you are not sufficiently taking into account these distinctions, you have not sufficiently and carefully studied the matter, the history of the Church and how She dealt with these matters, to make such judgments, but only narrowly focusing on the notion of heresy.  And it is to your confusion and detriment, not only to yourself, but to the Church, for your theories lead directly to the destruction of the Church.    

So which one is B16 the pope of?

It's not for Caminus to say that there's no authority existing or that could exist to elect a new Pope in a sede vacante situation.

Your theory necessarily implies such authority has ceased to exist, is nullified or cannot be ascertained.  At very least, it implies that you have no certainty as to where it resides.  This is the reasoning process at work and such "judgments" are perfectly legitimate.  

For the SV, it is less about theology than it is about letting the imagination dictate one's thought process (e.g. imagining literally two distinct churches as a premise), begging the question, abusing or unnaturally restricting terms and meanings of words and generally the disposition of the mind.  Two men looking at the same set of facts and circuмstances can come to two or more differing conclusions.  But the dishonest (or simply ignorant) one refuses to admit that his conclusions involve a grave implication.

I think it would be helpful for certain Catholics to firmly grasp the basic requirements of Church membership under the aspect of an external society.  Mgr. Fenton's writing would be a great help to them in understanding this basic premise.  Too many are falling into or tending to the error of spiritualizing the Church or considering it as the Donatists once did, e.g. how could an Immaculate Spouse be "infected" with evil, blind or dangerous men, sickening and strangling its life.  

Your theory necessarily implies such authority has ceased to exist, is nullified or cannot be ascertained.  At very least, it implies that you have no certainty as to where it resides.  This is the reasoning process at work and such "judgments" are perfectly legitimate.  

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.

It's not for you to tell them what sources of authority that remnant can have.

For the SV, it is less about theology than it is about letting the imagination dictate one's thought process (e.g. imagining literally two distinct churches as a premise),

Sedes don't imagine that.  The SSPX provided them with the premise of their being two churches.  That's hardly the basis of sedevacantist arguments.

begging the question, abusing or unnaturally restricting terms and meanings of words and generally the disposition of the mind.  Two men looking at the same set of facts and circuмstances can come to two or more differing conclusions.  But the dishonest (or simply ignorant) one refuses to admit that his conclusions involve a grave implication.

You mean the SSPX refuses to admit the heretical implications of its position?  Or simply pretends to be oblivious to them?  

I think it would be helpful for certain Catholics to firmly grasp the basic requirements of Church membership under the aspect of an external society.  Mgr. Fenton's writing would be a great help to them in understanding this basic premise.

I firmly grasp that the Pope cannot be a manifest heretic.  It is evident that the SSPX does not grasp that.  Since they say a man is a heretic, but then say he's Pope.

 

Too many are falling into or tending to the error of spiritualizing the Church or considering it as the Donatists once did, e.g. how could an Immaculate Spouse be "infected" with evil, blind or dangerous men, sickening and strangling its life.  

The Church can't teach evil.  If Vatican II and the New Mass are evil and they come from the Church then the Church is teaching evil.

Such a private decision is not even derived from judging someone's status regarding the Church, but from the fact that a Pope cannot teach evil doctrines.

Making comparisons with the Donatists is not honest either. They refused to receive the repentant lapsi back into the fold. Their error sprung from a lack of mercy.

Such a private decision is not even derived from judging someone's status regarding the Church, but from the fact that a Pope cannot teach evil doctrines.

Making comparisons with the Donatists is not honest either. They refused to receive the repentant lapsi back into the fold. Their error sprung from a lack of mercy.

I suggest you read Augustine's Letters against the Donatists.  

Learn to read.

What was that you said a few weeks ago about being more charitable to me?

There's only one Church SS.

Correct, there is only one Catholic Church. I'm saying that a counter-fit church does exist as well. You don't think the Vatican II church is a counter-fit church?

 One thing is for certain:  When the conciliar church begins ordaining women, there will be women bishops very soon after and the Vatican will simply not be able to resist appointing women as cardinals (the first will probably be in charge of the Congregation for the Clergy) and I am absolutely confident that the first conclave that includes women cardinals will elect one of them as pope; probably on the first ballot.  

And, in case you're asking, the very same people who defend the women priests will demand that we accept a woman pope, or would that be a "popess"?

And not one act they do will be valid or licit, none.