What is there to motivate the search for these "extrinsic indicators of illegitimacy," if not the fact that the putative Pope has been teaching erroneous doctrine? And what would be the benefit of finding such indicators, if their presence leads one to conclude the very same thing he would have concluded in their absence, and from the very same motivations? And what is the point of a divine guarantee of indefectibility which can to all appearances be subverted by something as mundane as the blackmailing of a Pope, to the great detriment of souls, but which supposedly leaves the treasured papal prerogatives, which even the gates of hell cannot prevail against, nevertheless undiminished?

It seems you are just making extra work for yourself, Ladislaus. And you still haven't escaped the spectre of private judgment, at least not as you define it.

Can we perhaps just cut the Gordian Knot here and admit that "private judgment" does not mean what you think it means? When someone compares the teachings of the pre-Conciliar Popes to those of the post-Conciliar Popes and finds that they are not the same, that is not a willful and sinful use of private judgment in a religious matter, but plain and simple logic of the sort used every day. Furthermore, the modus tollens argument from within the scope of the magisterium is the normal and ordinary means used to expose heresies and heretics of every kind; and if those heretics happen to be putative Popes, then so much the worse for them.

As I've pointed out to you before, your brand of dogmatic sededoubtism is very, very dogmatic indeed (in the literal sense of the word), for it casts a pale of uncertainty over every papal proposition whatsoever, which uncertainty can never be relieved until the end of time. Sededoubtism equates to eschatological skepticism with a proviso attached to the effect that only he who perseveres in unyielding recognition of the papal claimant, even in cases of heresy, will be saved. The Catholic Church has never taught such doctrine.

Now here is the whole argument expressed in the simplest possible terms. Both Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Williamson agree that what Francis teaches isn't Catholic. In this they are not exercising their private judgment but are simply being rational. +Williamson recognizes Francis as Pope but then proceeds to sift his teachings for what is traditional in them. +Sanborn does not recognize Francis and does not sift his teachings. The accusation of magisterium-sifting by private judgment pertains to +Williamson precisely because he recognizes Francis as Pope, as the infallible head of the magisterium whom he is required to obey. The accusation of pope-sifting by private judgment does not pertain to +Sanborn because there is no Catholic teaching which asserts that someone who claims to be a Pope necessarily is one. In fact, the Catholic Church teaches that heretics are cut off from the Body of Christ. He who is not a member of the body cannot be the head of the body. Therefore, Francis is not the Pope.

Whether or not you accept sedevacantism, you must accept that +Williamson's magisterium-sifting involves private judgment in a way that +Sanborn's alleged "pope-sifting" does not. That is the only point being hashed out here. Everything which follows from this is an implication which I will not belabor at present. In no wise, however, can the two cases be treated as equivalent, nor does the sededoubtist position hold water. It all boils down to the major premise of +Bishop Sanborn's syllogism which, if memory serves me, has not even been mentioned in this thread, viz. that Vatican II introduced substantial changes in Christian doctrine. That is the stone which grinds everything else to dust. If that is true than you should be able to draw the conclusions as well as I.

An interesting theory: Traditionalism is a convenient exercise in passivism! "We have our traditions to protect us in good times and bad!" So, the liberals are the only active ones, changing this and that ..... and even changing the terms in which trads are judging themselves! The ultimate captive audience. Folk must be prepared to throw off the Roman yoke when liberal contamination reaches a  certain point. If not, they will be carried along as hostages of fortune using their herd instinct. But few of us, even trads, will do it .......

I read Bishop Sanborn's article and I think it was excellent.  He brought up a lot of good points.  But some of the R&R folks here have also brought up some good points.

I agree.  BOTH sides have some valid points, which because of the fact that the two sides have become entrenched in bitter polemic they refuse to acknowledge.  If both sides would bury the hatchet, we could come closer to the truth.  I like to listen to both sides with an open mind.  I'm not entrenched in either camp.

I have come to the sede-doubtist position, which essentially acknowledges what I consider to be valid points on each side.

Quote from: Man of the West

What is there to motivate the search for these "extrinsic indicators of illegitimacy," ...

You really don't get it.  Without INDEPENDENT knowledge of the legitimacy of a pope, there's NO SUCH THING AS INFALLIBILITY.

Infallibility is the a priori GUARANTEE BEFOREHAND that a doctrine that will be taught WILL be in conformity with Tradition.  If you cannot get that a priori guarantee that's independent of and extrinsic to the actual exercise of the magisterium, there is no such thing as infallibility.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM with modo tollentis sedevacantism.  Period.  End of story.

It's not about SEARCHING for extrinsic indicators of illegitimacy; if these do not manifest themselves, the very fact that a Pope is reigning as pope, accepted by the Universal Church, and does not manifest any reasons to have positive doubt about his legitimacy, this makes the legitimacy of the Pope a dogmatic fact independent of any exercise of the magisterium.  Period.

Without that, any exercise of the magisterium is a circular feedback loop of convalidation by the Church.

Pope proclaims doctrine.  We examine the doctrine.  We either accept it as Traditional or reject it as non-Traditional.  If we accept, then we know it was taught infallibly.  If we reject it, then (if you're sedevacantist) we can assert illegitimacy or (if you're sedeplenist) you can reject that particular doctrine.

It's as plain as day; modo tollentis sedevacantism destroys the magisterium.

BOTH Pope-Sifting and Magisterium-Sifting destroy the magisterium.

With that said, I don't agree with Bishop Sanborn regarding the extent of infallibility protection for the Magisterium.  I don't believe that every sentence in every encyclical is infallible.  I believe that the notes of infallibility (in the Vatican I definition) restrict it more than that.  But I also feel that the scope of the Vatican II error and the promulgation of the New Mass certainly cross the line where one would have to say that the Church defected if one believes that these are harmful to souls and contrary to the Faith.

How do you reconcile your thoughts with the Church's teaching that even popes can be removed if they depart from the Faith?  How would the removal of the pope not also destroy the magisterium in your view?

How do you reconcile your thoughts with the Church's teaching that even popes can be removed if they depart from the Faith?  How would the removal of the pope not also destroy the magisterium in your view?

Departure from the faith must be ascertained outside the exercise of the magisterium.

Please review my earlier example of Pius XIII.

Pius XIII reigns for 20 years.  No Catholic doubts his orthodoxy.  In his 21st year, Pius XIII defines a dogma which I consider to be incompatible with Tradition.

Can I reject the dogma with the assertion that Pius XIII has defected?

Absolutely not.

Instead, I must put aside my previous private judgment and accept with the certainty of faith that the dogma is in fact Traditional and reject as mistaken my previous thinking that it was not.

That's Catholicism.

If you say you can assert illegitimacy, then dogmas become subject to a convalidation feedback loop and have no a priori guarantee of infallibility, i.e. they are NOT INFALLIBLE.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Something is infallible if it's true and not infallible if it's false.

Exactly. That would be called "reality." I have a hard time believing you're not just playing games with everybody when you write stuff like this.

And I have a hard time understanding how you don't realize that if there's no a priori guarantee of truth that something can be infallible.

Infallible means that there's a guarantee that it CANNOT be false.

This right here exemplifies a pernicious fruit of Traditional Catholicism which as Traditional Catholics we must absolutely reject.  We are now subjecting everything to our private judgment to determine whether or not it's Traditional.  This is a tremendous danger to the faith.

Answer this question, Man of the West:

Pius XIII reigns for 20 years.  No Catholic doubts his orthodoxy.  In his 21st year, Pius XIII defines a dogma which I consider to be incompatible with Tradition.

Can I reject the dogma with the assertion that Pius XIII has defected?

Yes or no?

Quote from: Clemens Maria

What if Pius XIII declares that Catholics are no longer to believe in the Immaculate Conception?

That cannot happen.  Not unless you deny the very dogma of infallibility.

It already did happen.  In 1965 Paul VI said that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.  This contradicts the Catholic doctrine that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.  Against a fact there is no argument.  The SV view is that by that very act he tacitly resigned his office.  Some say that it was this act which founded a new church, the Conciliar Church.  It is arguably true that the Church of Christ did subsist in the Conciliar Church, at least for a time.  But the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church have always been identical regardless of what Paul VI said.