In the meantime this apparent stop of Archbishop Vigano on the road to sedevacantism is highly reasonable, because it safeguards in a Catholic mind and heart a measure of respect for Catholic Authority which might otherwise go completely by the board. Woe to Catholic Tradition, or to its “Resistance,” that would lose all respect for Catholic Authority...

So, apparently, sedevacantists don't hold any measure of respect for Catholic Authority...?  Yada, yada, yada... I'm glad I jettisoned that claptrap years ago.  Feel free to disagree with the argument.  But don't falsify it.

This actually answers the key question for me.

+Vigano says that it's morally certain that Jorge is not the pope.

+Vigano says he's not a "sedevacantist".

So how do they define the term "sedevacantist"?

When Bishop Williamson says that +Vigano stopped sort of sedevacantism (but doesn't rule out that +Vigano might go there), he subtly defines what he means (and likely +Vigano means, since they talk often).

+Williamson:
So, for them, the term "sedevacantist" refers to holding that all the V2 papal claimants were not legitimate.

We see also here Bishop Williamson's attitude about sedevacantism, calling it "the conviction of many serious Catholics".  Hardly characterizing it as some "danger to souls" that must be avoided at all costs, as Plenus Venter alleged the Resistance holds.  Of course, we also have a CI member who posted some correspondence with Father Chazal, where Father Chazal also holds that Bergoglio is not a true pope.

As for the "official declaration" part, I think almost every sedevacantist and certainly every sedeprivationist would absolutely agree with that, so that does not distinguish them from sedevacantists.

+Williamson also hints at the MAJOR of "sedevacantism", as I've laid it out before.
But, Your Excellency, Archbishop Lefebvre answered this question quite clearly:
Archbishop Lefebvre only hesitated on account of the MINOR, and the certainty with which he could explain how this destruction could have happened.

https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf

Fr. Chazal's "sede-impoundism" closely follows 1917 Canon Law. He believes that Bergoglio was lawfully elected and is a public, manifest heretic. Because of his public heresy, Bergoglio has been ipso facto legally "removed" from office (Canon 188.4) and ipso facto excommunicated (Canon 2314.1).

The flip-side of the "removal" from office is that the office is legally "vacant." Even though Bergoglio still acts like he's the Pope, he is in a state of illegitimacy until he repents of his heresy. In a state of illegitimacy, Catholics must not submit to ANY of his laws or dictates. Catholics must refuse to treat him as an acting Pope. At best he is a suspended/impounded Pope, while in the state of illegitimacy (Canons 2259-2265).

The ipso facto excommunication is the first stage of the excommunication process, which is outlined in Canon 2314. The details of the "privations" at the ipso facto level of excommunication can be read in Canons 2259-2265). According to Canon 2262, which supports the non-una-cuм position, he is "not able to participate...in the public prayers of the Church." According to Canon 2263, he is "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts." According to Canon 2264, his "acts of jurisdiction...are illicit." According to Canon 2264, he is "prohibited from  the right of electing, presenting, or appointing." In other words, he is bereft of the normal powers that a Catholic considers a Pope to have.

But because his excommunication status has not been "declared" by a competent authority (level 2), he still retains the fruits of his office (salary, housing, etc.). And most importantly, he does not lose "the office itself" until he has been condemned/banned/degraded by a competent authority (Canons 2266 and 2314).

So, 1917 Canon Law explains the process and what happens at each stage of excommunication for a heretic Pope. But for all practical purposes, an ipso facto public heretic is suspended/impounded and the See is provisionally "vacant" at the moment he becomes a manifest public heretic. Normal Catholics must treat him as a non-Pope until he repents.

Vigano's position seems to be different from Chazal's. On the one hand, he says Bergoglio never took office because of Bergoglio's "defect of consent." But, on the other hand, he says Bergoglio must be "officially declared" a non-Pope by a competent authority. Vigano's position is idiosyncratic and doesn't have a clear basis in Canons dealing with holders of ecclesiastical office. He says he came up his idea ("the defect of consent") when considering the impediments to the Sacrament of Marriage. Like Chazal, Vigano holds that Bergoglio must be treated as if he is a non-Pope by all Catholics, while waiting for the final judgment of the Church to formally depose him. But, Vigano goes farther than Chazal, calling Bergoglio a "usurper" of the Papacy.

P.S. Bergoglio is a special case. He was never lawfully-elected Pope to begin with. If interested, you can read why at www.antipope.com.

Hm? how does this work?  Vigano is disregarding the pope. So, he is no longer New Order?  People see him as next pope? How is that? By what authority? Is Vigano Pius X? Very confusing! 

Honestly, I see him with maybe, maybe ordained as a priest, maybe.  After that, nothing.  He supported the heretical counterfeit church, new order and all.  Now he is a changed man?  I don't see it.  He is not a bishop of new order. I do have the opinion that Vigano has bad connection with the conferences( bad company) he has roosted with.  I don't trust him.  I do think he speaks the words that itchy ears want to hear.

If prophecy is true, Roman will return to paganism.  Yes, they are truly there.  Satan will have roosted there, taken over the seat. True.  Next, should be Chapter 12 of Daniel, no Mass for 3 and a half years, followed by the worst tribulation that the earth has ever had.  Cardinal Manning stated this, which is prophecy.

So, IMO it is still coming and that is not the end of times, but latter times.

Vigano to me is like another Michael Voris, all dooms day, and no solution but himself.

This is the type of rash judgement that *justifiably* causes Ladislaus to get bent out of shape.

Hm? how does this work?  Vigano is disregarding the pope. So, he is no longer New Order?  People see him as next pope? How is that? By what authority? Is Vigano Pius X? Very confusing! 

Honestly, I see him with maybe, maybe ordained as a priest, maybe.  After that, nothing.  He supported the heretical counterfeit church, new order and all.  Now he is a changed man?  I don't see it.  He is not a bishop of new order. I do have the opinion that Vigano has bad connection with the conferences( bad company) he has roosted with.  I don't trust him.  I do think he speaks the words that itchy ears want to hear.

If prophecy is true, Roman will return to paganism.  Yes, they are truly there.  Satan will have roosted there, taken over the seat. True.  Next, should be Chapter 12 of Daniel, no Mass for 3 and a half years, followed by the worst tribulation that the earth has ever had.  Cardinal Manning stated this, which is prophecy.

So, IMO it is still coming and that is not the end of times, but latter times.

Vigano to me is like another Michael Voris, all dooms day, and no solution but himself.

Songbird, songbird, songbird! How I wish you would sing true.
It is your tune that is confusing!
It is not we who have itching ears, but you who want to remain deaf. You couldn't make up the stuff that Archbishop Vigano writes if you wanted to. His words are as if divinely inspired. He is almost peerless in his penetrating analyses of the evils afflicting Church and world.
He who loves truth and goodness, hates error and evil, and if there is one thing that was conspicuously lacking in this evil world in which we live prior to the appearance of Archbishop Vigano, it was a prelate, with a world-wide audience, to fearlessly identify and condemn those errors and that evil in uncompromising fashion.
He is a God-send in the true meaning of the words.

It is amazing from your odious comparison with Michael Voris that you did not score 20 down-votes for that post rather than one.

What is the duty of the bishop? Is it not firstly to preach the Faith? And how can a good bishop in today's world do that effectively without identifying and condemning the errors and evils that are undermining that Faith to the point of almost exterminating it from the face of the earth? But you call this no solution? Is that not the very beginning of the solution, to understand the problem and return to the truth?
You might have seen on the thread started by Twice dyed in a talk from Fr Salenave we learn that Archbishop Vigano has 30 priests with him with a project to start a seminary. And all this from an 83/84 year old Archbishop. But you say his only solution is himself? I would really love to see you retract that statement, I hope you do.

As I have said on a similar post, do you pray for the conversion of the Pope and the bishops? What would you expect that to look like? If tomorrow, every bishop in the Church started behaving like Archbishop Vigano, would the crisis in the Church not be at and end? I think we could safely say that the Church would never have been in such a healthy state since Apostolic times. So let us thank God for the great grace He has given us in Archbishop Vigano if we truly want Him to bring the churchmen back to Tradition and bring this crisis to an end. One sure way not to receive God's mercies is to be ungrateful for those already received.
 

Wrong.  A public manifest formal heretic loses the office itself and the habitual jurisdiction that comes with the office.  That is of Divine Law.  No Ecclesiastical Law can contravene or lessen the effect of the Divine Law.

Divine Law = law given to us directly from God.

Be specific - which Divine Law is it that commands "a public manifest formal heretic loses the office itself and the habitual jurisdiction that comes with the office?"

FWIW, all sins are sins against Divine Law, hence the need to be specific when you make the above statement.

CK, you are not understanding the canonical process and the meaning of the words used in Canon Law. And the Church did not promulgate Canon Law that is contrary to divine law. Give yourself some time to learn what those Canons mean, and I believe you will see how everything fits together in a way that you will agree with.

Uhm, nobody says that Canon Law is contrary to Divine Law, but some aspects of Canon Law are not Divine Law but discipline that's been imposed by the Church.

Aspects of Canon Law that are not of Divine Law do not bind the Pope, nor can a Pope be deposed from office by operation of human law.

It's something "you are not understanding".

The Pope is always bound by the law.

No he's not, except if it's Divine Law.  Much less can he be deposed by the operation of human law.

No, all theologians and Canonists agree that Pope are not subject to Canon Law and cannot be coerced by those parts of it that are not Divine (or natural) law, but merely say that the Pope should obey the laws they establish.  Even the law about laws taking force in 3 months can easily be overridden by a single word from the Pope, if he were to issue a decree and simply say, "This law binds immediately."  This binding in 3 months is simply a law that the Pope has already laid down and it effects the faithful and those are impacted by the law, but he is in no way bound to this or prevented from simply issuing a law that binds immediately (thus overriding Canon Law).  Pope can dispense from (merely human) law at any time and for any reason, and he cannot be coerced by it.  Nor can a Pope be excommunicated other than by the action of Divine Law.  All theologians and Canon lawyers agree on this.