CathInfo.com

So, the two questions I've never seen answered by the Totalist Sedevacantists ...

1) What principle serves as a backstop from anyone at any given time simply declaring the current Pope a heretic or non-pope, or even past popes like Pius IX, Pius XI, Pius XII, and one guy I knew even St. Pius X?

2) What evidence is there that Montini was a "manifest heretic" before his putative election?  Nobody has ever presented anything ... since Montini was more concerned about running soup kitchens than about anything related to doctrine.  So the first time that anyone could recognize that Montini was a non-pope was ... when he started teaching error from the See?  That's a huge problem, then, if there's no a priori and independent criterion for knowing papal legitimacy, since if a Pope teaches something you think is erroneous, just declare him a non-pope and ... problem solved.  Old Catholics could have just made that allegation against Pius IX.  Why not?

She said he lost his authority

I can ensure you that Our Lady never said this. Also, King Louis XIV (fourteen), the one who is said to have defied a request to have France consecrated to the Sacred Heart, was not "dethroned and beheaded" as you claim above, but King Louis XVI (sixteen) was.

Let's put things in a balance:

On one side: The dogma of the Assumption, a bunch of canonizations cited above by moneil - all these depend on the legitimacy of Pius XI and Pius XII. Also, they are binding beliefs. Denying or casting doubt on only one of those could send a soul to Hell.

On the other side: Your private judgement that a Pope lost authority for supposedly disobeying a private revelation.

Choose wisely. It's your immortal soul at stake. PAX!

BTW, this willy nilly "dethronement" of Popes is common here on this forum. I've seen users also deny the legitimacy of Popes Pius VII, Boniface VIII, all Popes since the Renaissance, and of course, Pope John XXIII. If you're one of those users, think that a dogmatic fact will outweigh a million times whatever silly little fact about those popes is scandalizing you.

Paul VI's case is abysmally different. He overhauled the entire liturgy of the Roman rite and substituted it with an evil discipline; he attempted to solemnly teach condemned doctrines; he had a habitual intention in doing the aforementioned evils (May 24th, 1976 allocution); he was accused of heresy very publicly at least twice during his lifetime... and a long etcetera. His successors never corrected course, in fact, they reaffirmed it.