[Banezian]

In an earlier thread, I said I could not attend  Fr. Ringrose Masses at St. Athanasius because he did not say una cuм Masses. After speaking with an SSPX priest and a parishioner at St. Athanasius, I think I may have been a bit quick to judge. I assumed Father was a lot more hostile to R&R than he actually is. Father welcomes all Traditional Catholics ( R&R or not) to attend Mass and receive the sacraments at his parish. His personal position is that while Francis was validly elected, he has not assumed the office of the papacy because he is a heretic.(Sedeprivationism) Fr. Ortiz( who is R&R himself) is there, so Father can’t be that hostile to R&R.

To be clear, I myself take the SSPX position( but sympathize with those in the Resistance) When it comes to Sedevacantism, Sedeprivationism is the only palatable  school of thought in my view. I certainly disagree with Sedeprivationists, but at least they believe Francis was validly elected. Anyone who says that the entire hierarchy has ceased to be Catholic is not Catholic themselves. If there is no hierarchy, then the Church is dead.  

[Mithrandylan]

Kudos to you for clarifying your position and adjusting it based on the truth (i.e., learning that your previous perspective was incorrect and reforming it accordingly)
.

Anyone who says that the entire hierarchy has ceased to be Catholic is not Catholic themselves. If there is no hierarchy, then the Church is dead.  

.
You are certainly correct about this.  Thankfully, no one believes this.  I think what you'll find is disagreement about who comprises the hierarchy, not disagreement about its existence and/or perpetuity.  Regarding the cardinalate as we know it (i.e., there have always been lawful electors but there has not always been a designated cardinalate body to whom alone the prerogative of election belonged), considering that it hasn't always existed I would recommend developing your line of thought better, since whether or not there are cardinals is not the same question as to whether or not there is a Catholic hierarchy.  

[Ladislaus]

Anyone who says that the entire hierarchy has ceased to be Catholic is not Catholic themselves. If there is no hierarchy, then the Church is dead.  

Agreed.  This is the ecclesiavacantist objection against sedevacantism, and it's very compelling.  Sedeprivationism solves the difficulties on both sides.  Father Ringrose woke up to the problems with R&R and ended up at a flavor of sedeprivationism ... to which I myself and strongly inclined.

[Banezian]

Kudos to you for clarifying your position and adjusting it based on the truth (i.e., learning that your previous perspective was incorrect and reforming it accordingly)
.
.
You are certainly correct about this.  Thankfully, no one believes this.  I think what you'll find is disagreement about who comprises the hierarchy, not disagreement about its existence and/or perpetuity.  Regarding the cardinalate as we know it (i.e., there have always been lawful electors but there has not always been a designated cardinalate body to whom alone the prerogative of election belonged), considering that it hasn't always existed I would recommend developing your line of thought better, since whether or not there are cardinals is not the same question as to whether or not there is a Catholic hierarchy.  

And this is where Sedevacantism becomes unacceptable. If there are no cardinals and no pope, the Church is dead. The Church is a monarchical structure with Pope-Cardinals-Bishops-priests. No cardinals means no one to elect a new pope. No pope means no one to appoint new cardinals. One can not be Catholic and hold this view

[Ladislaus]

And this is where Sedevacantism becomes unacceptable. If there are no cardinals and no pope, the Church is dead. The Church is a monarchical structure with Pope-Cardinals-Bishops-priests. No cardinals means no one to elect a new pope. No pope means no one to appoint new cardinals. One can not be Catholic and hold this view

Well, I mostly agree ... except for the Cardinals part.  As St. Robert Bellarmine explained, the notion of Cardinals is not of divine but of human institution and can be replace with some other mode of election/designation.

[Ladislaus]

whether or not there are cardinals is not the same question as to whether or not there is a Catholic hierarchy.  

THIS ^^^

[Ladislaus]

You are certainly correct about this.  Thankfully, no one believes this. 

Unfortunately, a great many sedevacantists, especially of the dogmatic variety, believe this at least implicitly.

[Banezian]

Well, I mostly agree ... except for the Cardinals part.  As St. Robert Bellarmine explained, the notion of Cardinals is not of divine but of human institution and can be replace with some other mode of election/designation.

But what Bellarmine said ( taken in context) can not apply to our current situation. The notion of Cardinals may be replaced with another method of election, but Cardinals(and a Pope) would surely make this change, not Bishops. Again, if there are no Cardibals(and no Pope) and all we have left is Bishops, the Church is dead. I would go Orthodox if that were my view

[Mithrandylan]

And this is where Sedevacantism becomes unacceptable. If there are no cardinals and no pope, the Church is dead. The Church is a monarchical structure with Pope-Cardinals-Bishops-priests. No cardinals means no one to elect a new pope. No pope means no one to appoint new cardinals. One can not be Catholic and hold this view

.
As I attempted to explain and as Ladislaus repeated, the cardinalate is not at issue.  It has not always existed and is a human development the benefit of which is administrative.  What is indisputable-- You and I both agree-- is that there is a perpetual and existent hierarchy, and that there are always lawful electors of a pope.  What is a matter of faith is that they exist.  Who they are is a matter of fact, and in principle debatable.

[Mithrandylan]

But what Bellarmine said ( taken in context) can not apply to our current situation. The notion of Cardinals may be replaced with another method of election, but Cardinals(and a Pope) would surely make this change, not Bishops. Again, if there are no Cardibals(and no Pope) and all we have left is Bishops, the Church is dead. I would go Orthodox if that were my view

.
Why is it then that theologians (including Bellarmine) entertain the notion of an extraordinary election?  Theologians who treat this issue all concur that there is a sort of "devolution" of electoral responsibility.  The Church can never be without means to elect a pope, true, but she is by no means bound to always use the same means, and in theory all the cardinals can die simultaneously (this is a hypothetical entertained especially in the middle of the twentieth century after the initiation of nuclear warfare when we realized that an entire city can be levelled in an instant) and while it'd be a mess to sort out, the responsibility of election would devolve from the cardinalate to the clergy of Rome, to neighboring dioceses, to the universal Church, etc. (exactly how an extraordinary election would occur is of course something that is debated, but that it could occur is denied by none).

[Ladislaus]

But what Bellarmine said ( taken in context) can not apply to our current situation. The notion of Cardinals may be replaced with another method of election, but Cardinals(and a Pope) would surely make this change, not Bishops. Again, if there are no Cardibals(and no Pope) and all we have left is Bishops, the Church is dead. I would go Orthodox if that were my view

St. Robert Bellarmine:

If there were no papal constitution on the election of the Supreme Pontiff; or if by some chance all the electors designated by law, that is, all the Cardinals, perished simultaneously, the right of election would pertain to the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with some dependence on a general council of bishops. 

[Ladislaus]

The Church is a monarchical structure with Pope-Cardinals-Bishops-priests.

That's not an accurate representation of the hierarchy.  Cardinals are a legal stand-in for the clergy of Rome.  That is why, ceremonially, they all receive titular churches in Rome.  Originally the clergy of Rome designated/elected the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.  Cardinals need not even be bishops, merely clergy.  But as happened in some cases, where the majority of a region fell into heresy, neighboring bishops could come in and then elect the bishop for the vacant See.  Bellarmine posits the same kind of process for a vacant Roman See.  Cardinals are not, per se, part of the Ecclesia Docens and do not by that position itself have any jurisdiction ... unless they also happen to be bishops.

[Banezian]

.
Why is it then that theologians (including Bellarmine) entertain the notion of an extraordinary election?  Theologians who treat this issue all concur that there is a sort of "devolution" of electoral responsibility.  The Church can never be without means to elect a pope, true, but she is by no means bound to always use the same means, and in theory all the cardinals can die simultaneously (this is a hypothetical entertained especially in the middle of the twentieth century after the initiation of nuclear warfare when we realized that an entire city can be levelled in an instant) and while it'd be a mess to sort out, the responsibility of election would devolve from the cardinalate to the clergy of Rome, to neighboring dioceses, to the universal Church, etc. (exactly how an extraordinary election would occur is of course something that is debated, but that it could occur is denied by none).

That it COULD occur may be the case in an extreme situation ( where all the Cardinals die for example) but to assume that we are at that point now is ridiculous. If sedes do assume we are at that point, then the logical step is for the sede bishops to go ahead and elect their own Pope. Why won’t they?  This reminds me of a conversation I had with Fr. Peek a few months ago. He rightly pointed out that Sedevacantism is a “dead-end” position. If it’s true, where does one go from there? Sedeprivationism can at least give a coherent answer and an idea for the future.  

[Banezian]

St. Robert Bellarmine:

That doesn’t apply. We surely still have living Cardinals, even ones who are largely orthodox like Burke.

[Ladislaus]

Oh, by the way, Banezian, since you mentioned that you're studying Classics.

I took 4 years of Latin and 3 of Greek in High School.

Then I got a full Classics scholarship to Loyola University of Chicago.  I graduated with double major in Greek and Latin, and one class short in "Classical Civilization" (because I left after 3 years to enter St. Thomas Aquinas seminary).  I also had minors in Philosophy, Theology, and Mathematics.

After I left the seminary, I got a full ride to The Catholic University of America (based on my GRE scores), and did all the coursework necessary for the Ph.D. in Greek and Latin.  I went there because of the emphasis on Patristics (at least through the M.A. level).  Unfortunately, the exam requirements were so onerous that I never finished the degree.  You basically had to test on a reading list that was twice as large as the typical ones because you had an entire Patristic list in addition to a Classical list that was just as big as at most other Classics programs.