It may have been, for many centuries, a minority opinion (like "implicit faith" in only 2 of the 4 Articles of Faith), but no opponent of sedevacatism can point to a single Magisterial docuмent which condemns the notion that a Pope who falls into heresy does not also forfeit his office.  In fact, the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, which was published after the close of the First Vatican Council states this about Pope Honorius I:

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.

Therefore, Popes can, indeed, fall into heresy, and by falling into heresy, a Pope can cease to be Catholic, and hence, Pope.

I did not know that there was a pope in history who was guilty of heresy.  Interesting.  Was there ever any evidence that those that lived during the time he was pope questioned his authority as pope? Or if he lost the office of pope?

No, although it was an issue at Vatican I.  Honorius was the only instance that remotely challenged the idea of papal infallibility, and since his case involves a private correspondence and more an instance of simply failing to condemn (rather than him positively holding) a heresy, it is quite different from the cases of the conciliar pontiffs who are manifest heretics.

Honorius was not the only heretical pope.

     "Anacletus had been implanted in an uncanonical election, after innocent II the true pope, had already been chosen. Despite his invalid and uncanonical election, Antipope Anacletus gained control of Rome and support of the majority of cardinals. Anacletus held the support of almost the entire populace of Rome until the true pope regained control of the city in 1138."

The Catholic Encyclopedia , "Anacletus" Vol. 1, 1907 pg. 447  

It may have been, for many centuries, a minority opinion (like "implicit faith" in only 2 of the 4 Articles of Faith), but no opponent of sedevacatism can point to a single Magisterial docuмent which condemns the notion that a Pope who falls into heresy does not also forfeit his office.  In fact, the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, which was published after the close of the First Vatican Council states this about Pope Honorius I:

Quote

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.

Therefore, Popes can, indeed, fall into heresy, and by falling into heresy, a Pope can cease to be Catholic, and hence, Pope.

It doesn't work like that, Jehanne.

No [one] can point to a single Magisterial docuмent which condemns the notion that a Pope who falls into heresy does not also forfeit his office.

You have 5 negatives in one sentence:  

No  one ------------------ opposite of some one*
condemns --------------- opposite of approves
falls into heresy --------  denial of true doctrine
not -----------------------  opposite of "is"
forfeit --------------------  opposite of "keep"

* I could have said "7 negatives" by including "opponent" and
"of sedevacantism," because opponents are NOT in favor of
something and sedevacantism is OPPOSED to the existence of
a current occupant of the Chair of Peter;  but I don't want to
make this any more challenging than it has to be................


An even number of negatives adds up to an overall positive.  

For example, if you say "I don't want to be absent from work,"
it means you do want to be present.  

If you say, "I don't want to be absent from work without a
note from my doctor that prevents me from being able to work,"
that makes 4 negatives, all of which can cancel each other to
leave you with an overall positive statement:  it means that you
do want to be present at work with a note from your doctor that
allows you to work.


An odd number of negatives adds up to an overall negative.  

"I don't want to be present at work," means you basically
don't want a job, I guess.  Or, "I want to be absent from work"
means you hate your job - you do NOT like your job;  it is
a negative experience to go to work, etc.

But three negatives produce an overall negative, as follows:
If you say, "I don't want to be absent from work without
a note," it means that you DO want to be PRESENT at work
without a note, or, you don't want to be PRESENT at
work WITH a note, or, you DO want to be absent from work WITH
a note.

The three negatives example is an overall negative that shows
a DESIRE to remain FREE of trouble at work.

FINALLY,
If you say, "I don't want to be absent from work with an
improper excuse that forbids my absence," it means that you
do want to be absent from work with a proper excuse that
allows your presence at work.  (That's an undesirable situation.  
It is a logical example of an odd number of negatives like your
statement has.)  

Another way of saying it is, "You don't want to be present at
work with a proper excuse that allows your presence," or,
"You do want to be present at work with an improper
excuse that allows your presence," or, "You do want to be
present at work with a proper excuse that forbids your
presence," or, "You do want to be present at work with a proper
excuse that allows your absence."

I would hope that none of these in the last example are
acceptable situations for anyone who wants to KEEP their job!
This is an exercise in logic that shows consistency:  an
undesirable leading proposition with 5 negatives can be reduced
to 5 simplified propositions with one negative, but they will still
all be undesirable situations:  reduction in logic does not render
a situation described to be desirable by way of reduction.

Likewise, when you reduce a desirable situation to one negative,
it still remains desirable.  But I suspect you don't want to see
that demonstrated here.



Therefore. yours is a negative statement.   By cancelling out the
negatives in pairs, it can be reduced to the following:  

"No one can produce an affirmation that a good pope keeps
his office."  

Or, that "Someone can show us a condemnation of a good
pope keeping his office."  

Or, "There is a Church docuмent that approves a heretical
pope keeping his office."  

Or, "Someone can show us where the Church has a good
pope losing his office.
 

If you don't like that exercise, maybe this one is easier (all are 5
negatives in one proposition):

Do you say, "Nowhere in the law can anyone find it stated that
no state governor who does not believe that our nation was
founded on principles of freedom does not thereby cease to
be governor?"  

Do you say, "Please show me the school by-laws that denies
that any Principal of the school who does not think it's his duty to
keep the north parking lot devoid of litter, squatters and transients
does not thereby forfeit his office?"  

Do you say, "No one can produce a law that says that no one is
allowed to deny that a standing President who does not
think that America is the land of the free and the home of the
brave is no longer president?"

Vatican I could have said the following,

If anyone says that the visible occupant of the Chair of Peter can forfeit his office for any reason whatsoever, let him be anathema.

Or,

If anyone says that the Chair of Peter can remain vacant until the End of Time, let him be anathema.

Or,

If anyone says that the visible Roman Pontiff can fall into heresy, even as a private individual, let him be anathema.

Instead, that Council said this:

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

And, this:

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

Ergo, since "Pope" Francis is a manifest, public heretic who is teaching not only novelty but manifest heresy, he cannot be a true successor to the See of Peter, therefore, the Chair is vacant.

I am not, by the way, "doing theology"; rather, I am making a historical observation, that is, that Pope Honorius I was declared, posthumously, to be a heretic.  So, either Pope Pope Honorius I was, indeed, a public heretic, or the Third Council of Constantinople erred in declaring him to be a heretic and Pope Leo II erred in affirming the Council's texts.

If Pope Honorius was capable of falling into public heresy while in office, so, too, "Pope" Francis, being a human being with free will, is just as capable.  In either case (sedevacantism versus sedeprivationism), we owe him no obedience whatsoever, at least until he public recants and abjures his errors, those of modernism, those of his predecessors, and those of Vatican II.  

It should, IMO, take him a couple of hours to do this.  A two or three-page Syllabus would be sufficient.

Vatican I could have said the following,

Quote

If anyone says that the visible occupant of the Chair of Peter can forfeit his office for any reason whatsoever, let him be anathema.

No, it couldn't.  Because no Pope has ever needed to have
someone's approval to abdicate his office.  He is not subject
to approval by anyone, and he never will be.

Or,

Quote

If anyone says that the Chair of Peter can remain vacant until the End of Time, let him be anathema.

How about when the "end of time" is in a few minutes?  The
councils are not in the habit of making stupid declarations ---
that is, until Vat.II came along.  Maybe you're too used to
thinking like Vat.II?  Because Vat.II could have had a stupid
declaration like that, to add one more to the already-long list
of stupid declarations.

Or,

Quote

If anyone says that the visible Roman Pontiff can fall into heresy, even as a private individual, let him be anathema.

More foolishness.  They may as well have said that the Pope is
not able to catch a cold, or suffer a broken bone or have a
headache -- or become mentally incompetent due to "dementia."

Before Vat.II and these Modernists that followed it, the pope
falling into heresy was unthinkable.  But now it's the norm.  
That's why Modernism is so pernicious.  It's the Grand Sewer
of all heresy.

Instead, that Council said this:

Quote

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

What does that have to do with the occupancy of his office or
the health of the officeholder?  

And, this:

Quote

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

How about this:

If anyone says that chapter 13 of the Apocalypse is anything
other than sheer fantasy and illusion, or that it can have any
other application than strange fairy tales for unsettled minds to
entertain themselves with wild imaginings, let him be anathema.  

More reasons that laymen shouldn't be allowed in the discussion.
They're not qualified.

You're lucky to have CathInfo as a place to hang out and wallow
in your fantastic, personal imagination outside of objective reality.  

Ergo, since [silly redundancy] "Pope" Francis is a manifest, public heretic who is teaching not only novelty but manifest heresy, he cannot be a true successor to the See of Peter, therefore, the Chair is vacant.

Rather,

Ergo, the confused musings of the misguided souls who flounder
in this morass of confusion only result in more confusing theories
that literally make no sense, but they do not therefore become
eligible to step up to positions of authority to pass judgment on
the pope, for no human creature has such a capacity, let alone an
ignorant layman with too many opinions and no practical training.

I am not, by the way, "doing theology"; rather, I am making a historical observation, that is, that Pope Honorius I was declared, posthumously, to be a heretic.  So, either Pope Pope Honorius I was, indeed, a public heretic, or the Third Council of Constantinople erred in declaring him to be a heretic and Pope Leo II erred in affirming the Council's texts.

If Pope Honorius was capable of falling into public heresy while in office, so, too, "Pope" Francis, being a human being with free will, is just as capable.  In either case (sedevacantism versus sedeprivationism), we owe him no obedience whatsoever, at least until he public recants and abjures his errors, those of modernism, those of his predecessors, and those of Vatican II.  

It should, IMO, take him a couple of hours to do this.  A two or three-page Syllabus would be sufficient.

"Ergo, since..." -- Someone has too much experience with caring
for babies and too little experience with handling logical arguments:

"I've had this ERGO since before my baby was even born."

Not that there is anything wrong with caring for babies, it's just
that trying to step outside your area of expertise generally leads
to at least the POSSIBILITY of serious mistakes.  In this case, it's
not just a possibility, it's manifestly real.

Interesting, Sede (what ever flavor, vacante, privation, etc)  Is probably not going to be decided by me, tho it does explain a lot, most have agreed.  

One thought was provoked somewhere in the voluminous words before (my wife gets going like this and I try to focus on what I'm doing and pretend I'm listening - I'm getting good at it over 15 years of marriage and 4 kids).   Could Ratzinger have stepped down due to being diagnosed w/ Alzheimers?  I sold neuro drugs for years and have witnessed that being diagnosed, once on a priest I knew, one who ironically refused me communion because I wouldn't take it in the hand at the last N.O. mass I ever went to.  I felt no joy in this diagnoses)  Frankly in the early stages it is difficult to tell.  Perhaps Benedict stepping down was the responsible thing in his mind, muddled as it already is.