[SeanJohnson]

From "TE" on my friend Mithrandylan's forum:

"I've thought a lot on this and a short post won't contain everything. My biggest influences in changing my mind, whom I would recommend to read are: +Schneider; Fr. Chazal; the Dominicans of Avrille, (also have started da Silveira's book). 

In some ways, my current position is similar to sede-impoundism– Bergoglio is pope, he certainly occupies the papacy, but has no right– governing validly but not licitly, by all rights he ought to correct himself or resign.

First, the most essential points:

-Sedeplenism is the default position. If a man is elected to the papacy, he is the pope; and to be definitely sedevacantist, one must be definitely sure.
-Ipso facto loss of office due to heresy is not something that must be believed with the certitude of faith. Ergo, none of the "ad hominem" arguments can be believed with the certitude of faith.
-Even if ipso facto loss due to manifest heresy (Bellarmine, 5th) is correct, a case can be made that Bellarmine did intend there to be some sort of official proceeding. Even if Bellarmine did not, it is true that others who held the 5th opinion did.

-As to the arguments along the nature of "this couldn't come from the Church/a true pope," they are more complex, and some of them are in some ways more compelling. I can't visit all of them in one thread, but in essence, I do not find them definitively certain anymore.

Another point on the essential nature of the pope question, why it is so difficult to resolve:

It seems to me that all who discussed the heretic-pope question did not consider the possibility of it happening in a manner akin to how it has happened to us. They assumed a healthy Church, with many good bishops, and a more clear, obvious heresy, rather than the subtle but deadly heresy of modernism which attempts to disguise its nature as heresy. The implicit assumption is that everyone recognizes this heresy, and then in some way or another pertinacity is ascertained with relative ease. They were mostly considering heresies more akin to Protestantism or open atheism– it does not seem that they imagined our situation in which a much more subtle heresy gradually infects an already much less robust Church, and weakens it more and more in the way that has happened to in our times.

This is why even amongst sedes there are disagreements as to which pope lost the papacy and when. Paul VI and John XXIII are the most popular hypotheses, but some go back further– in one case as far back as Innocent III in 1216 AD.

I know those who are sede may brush aside the JXXIII/PVI/In.III spectrum off, but considering these differences reveals the biggest weakness in the sedevacantist case– that what is "manifest," to one individual is not "manifest," to another.

Ergo, we must have recourse to the objective legal systems of the Church.

The longer I live the less I love my own opinion. The Church gives us the opportunity to not have to rely on our own fallible opinion.

Historically, it does seem to be the case that bishops are deposed by the pope, not "ipso facto." There is even quote of St. Robert to that effect. When saying that all heretics are deposed, it would seem to mean that this is what should happen, but no lay person can be certain without the intervention of higher authority. The Church is cautious in such matters.

A last note: many sede arguments apply equally to sede-ism, for example, regarding the "how has the Church not defected if?" user EricH admits that though a sede, he is not sure how the Church has not defected. (there are many more similar, for a followup post)

In any case, I'll probably have another post sometime this coming week. These are only the most essential considerations put as briefly as I can; but there are a lot of other relevant aspects to this question (ecclesiavacantism, questions on validity of sacraments, consequences of sedevacantism, etc.)."

For some high level back and forth, see the rest of the thread here: http://www.thetradforum.com//index.php?topic=769.0