Baloney.  Most absurd thing I've ever heard.

It's part and parcel of the Salza-ist warping of St. Robert Bellarmine, where something that hasn't been juridically determined/established is "occult".

Biggest problem with the "deponendus" theory is that it requires judging someone who's the Pope, which cannot be done.  If a person doesn't cease to be pope until you pass sentence on them, then you're passing sentence on a Pope ... which is effectively heretical since Vatican I.

Of course you can pass a declaration regarding a "finding of fact", but this merely formalizes something that has to have happened ontological prior to the sentence ... one more reason why the only real answer to these problems rests with the formal/material distinction (sedeprivationism, Chazalism, etc.)

SPism or SIism (sede-impoundism of Fr. Chazal) addresses the valid objections made by the Cajetanists against the Bellarminists and the Bellarminists against the Cajetanists (and John of St. Thomas), since a material removal can only take place once God has formally removed the man from office, but it also gives some rightful role to the Church to make the final determination to serve as a backstop against permitting "Aunt Helen" from waking up cranky one morning and starting to depose popes. 

I'm pretty sure Sedeprivationism and Sede-impoundism, as well as Sede-impeditism, were a "thing" before Fr. Chazal. He made up neither of these positions. I had heard of all of these 23+ years ago.

Of course, Sean Johnson liked to lump them all into "Sede-whatever" or "Sedevacantist", all of whom he would ban and not speak to. But when something has a different meaning, it needs a different name. A different "word" for a different concept, a different reality. Each distinct concept needs a concise way to refer to it.

Sure.  I personally think that sedeprivationism and the position that Fr. Chazal articulated are the same, for all practical intents and purposes, but Fr. insists that there's a difference, so out of deference to him, I throw in the extra term.  At one point, he was asked what he would call it, and he rattled off some 7-syllable phrase that included being impounded by virtue of some canon, etc. ... that I then shortened to sedeimpoundism.  I think the term "impounded" does accurately convey the essence of his position, where the Pope is there, holding office, but in a state of suspension where he can't licitly exercise the office.

At the end of the day, as I said, I'm actually not too interested in debating the finer points of the differences in these opinions, nor in debating the "5 Opinions".  Much better minds than ours have failed to agree on these questions, and we're not going to resolve the debate here.

I focus entirely on the nature and indefectibility of the Church and the papacy. 

1) To me, it's clear to anyone who has a modicuм of sensus Catholicus left ... something which Salza has defeated with great violence to himself, resulting in split brain and a kind of schizophrenia ... that there's a radical incompatibility between the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church.  That's why we're Trad Catholics.  If this were just a set of accidental differences, then we would be guilty of schism for breaking away from the Church.

2) Nature of the Papacy, the obligation of Catholics to be in communion with and in submission to the Papal Magisterium, the protection of the Holy Ghost over the papacy that would prevent the Pope from effecting #1 above, a radical and destructive transformation of the Catholic Church.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone upholds these two, I have no quarrel with them, and I'm not interested in debating it.  Archbishop Lefebvre, for instance, upheld both these.

Now if you want to argue privationist this or poundist that or vaccantist this, or, as +Lefebvre did, say "I don't know", or, heck, if you wanted to claim that the reason for the crisis is because Montini was drugged, held captive in the Vatican dungeons, and replaced by some big-eared crooked-nosed double ... more power to you.  I don't actually care.  I just care about #1 and #2 above.

It's part and parcel of the Salza-ist warping of St. Robert Bellarmine, where something that hasn't been juridically determined/established is "occult".

Yes, and the other problem is that you can't only use canon law in regards to penalties for heresy/schism.  There are other papal docuмents (i.e. cuм Ex, Quo Primum, etc) which have their own specific penalties for heresy and schism.  Canon Law is meant as a guideline for cases which aren't covered by historically important papal bulls or docuмents.


The V2 machine can be easily proven to be schismatic and grossly so, as Fr Hesse pointed out.  This should've been emphasized by Trad clerics long ago, because the actions/penalties for schism are much easier to identify and process (for simple layfolk).  And practically speaking, it is sufficient for Traditionalism to declare the V2 machine as schismatic, in order to ignore/reject it, vs trying to wade through the laborious details of the various types of heresy, and which type applies to a pope, etc.  Which is why most sedevacantists end up resorting to the "Divine Law" argument; because every other accusation is not totally clear or provable.

Much like it's almost impossible to determine the validity question of the new mass, comparatively, it is super easy to determine that it's schismatic, simply due to Quo Primum and other docuмents.  I wish we could go back in time and re-frame Traditionalism's opposition to new-rome.  Life right now might have been much clearer and with Trads more united.