Didn't want to derail the thread on Bishop WIlliamson's Toronto conference by responding to this observation there, so started a new thread to discuss this precise distinction:

Looks like there are some persistent sedevacantists (during the Q&A session) trying to prod His Excellency into sedevacantism.

Commentary:

I noticed that myself.

Bishop Williamson correctly distinguishes between formal and material heretics.

Things get a bit hazy, however, when he asserts that formal heretics lose Church membership (which is certainly correct), but material heretics do not.

This is so because there is a further distinction between PUBLIC MATERIAL heresy, and COVERT MATERIAL heresy.

Covert material heretics certainly retain their membership in the Church.

However, it seems to be a disputed topic as to whether public material heretics retain Church membership, with the majority of theologians (at least the ones I have read on the issue) asserting they lose membership.

Therefore, to determine whether the popes are nopes (so far as the present cause/issue is concerned), it would seem to be necessary to determine two things:

1) Is it the opinion of the Church that public material heretics lose membership?

2) What exactly is the definition of a public material heretic?

All here know that I am not a sedevacantist.

Yet at the same time, in the interest of honesty, I think the distinction His Excellency offers against the sedevacantist conclusion does not go far enough until it takes into account and resolves the further issue/distinction on the fate and definition of the public material heretic.

Material heresy means that from an objective point of view, the person is a heretic.

Someone who is a public heretic may not be culpable for his errors but he is objectively outside the Church.

So in other words:

1) The covert material heretic became a public material heretic when his heritical opinions became known publicly, and

2) He lost membership because his inculpable opinion became public.

It is possible you are correct, but something seems a bit off there, because:

1) All those outside the Church are damned;

2) But a man who lost membership in the Church through no fault is without culpability.

3) Therefore, the innocent are damned?

1) All those outside the Church are damned;

That is like saying all those who commit ѕυιcιdє are damned.  It is possible that a ѕυιcιdє might not be culpable for what he does.

2) But a man who lost membership in the Church through no fault is without culpability.

There are those who are in good faith who do not appear to be part of the visible Church.  However, they are united to the soul of the Church.

Point me in the right direction but where did Bishop Williamson assign any form of heresy to sedevacantism.  

he modern church has called the SSPX schizmatic on several occasions. Thats why the Neo SSPX is in a rush to reunite with the apostate church of Rome, and its apostate "Pope"

The real reason the Neo-SSPX wants to reunite with modernist Rome is because Bishop Fellay is a liberal. Those such as Bishop Williamson don't care if newchurch considers them to be "schismatic" and neither did Archbishop Lefebvre.

The sedevacantists pray that someday the priests and laity of the SSPX who perservere outside the Church of the beast, will see the light.

I think we just need to pray that Bishop Fellay and his ilk see the light and that they stop playing around with the wolves in Rome!

Quote from: Telesphorus

Material heresy means that from an objective point of view, the person is a heretic.

Someone who is a public heretic may not be culpable for his errors but he is objectively outside the Church.

Taken from "A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY" (Attwater): HERESY, MATERIAL.  Heresy which is the outcome of ignorance and accompianed by no obstinacy of the will, e.g., the heresy of a Protestant who has never suspected that his own is not the true religion.  It is without guilt so long as there is no doubt in the heretic's mind regarding his false position.  It is opposed to formal heresy, which is the deliberate denial or doubt or a revealed truth.

Yes, this is not disputed.

The distinction under consideration is between public and private material heresy.

And after that, which of those two the recent popes are guilty of (if any).

Finally, whether they lose membership in the church if a public material heretic.

Quote from: Elmer Fudd

Quote from: Telesphorus

Material heresy means that from an objective point of view, the person is a heretic.

Someone who is a public heretic may not be culpable for his errors but he is objectively outside the Church.

Taken from "A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY" (Attwater): HERESY, MATERIAL.  Heresy which is the outcome of ignorance and accompianed by no obstinacy of the will, e.g., the heresy of a Protestant who has never suspected that his own is not the true religion.  It is without guilt so long as there is no doubt in the heretic's mind regarding his false position.  It is opposed to formal heresy, which is the deliberate denial or doubt or a revealed truth.

Yes, this is not disputed.

The distinction under consideration is between public and private material heresy.

And after that, which of those two the recent popes are guilty of (if any).

Finally, whether they lose membership in the church if a public material heretic.

I don't follow you on what you mean "private material heresy?"