You're hopeless.
I didn't say that a legitimate papacy isn't dogmatic fact, just that THESE papacies are not dogmatic fact. +Lefebvre, +Williamson, and Avrille agree with that.
You’re hopeless.
I didn’t say that normal canonizations weren’t dogmatic fact, just that THESE canonizations are not dogmatic fact.
Lefebvre, Williamson, and Avrille agree with that.
Ps: You’re actually wrong about them regarding dogmatic facts and the pope. You are simply taking cherry-picked quotes and then extrapolating upon the logical consequences of it, when in fact, I have yet to read a positive denial from any of them.
My guess is they never actually considered the issue from the perspective of dogmatic fact, and if you put it to them, they would likely be as perplexed about the matter as anyone else:
How can a pope enjoying UA not be a dogmatic fact (ie., such would imply the entire Church is deceived and following a false rule of faith)?
On the other hand, how can Lefebvre, Avrille, and Williamson acknowledge the theoretical possibility of sedevacantism, however improbable, if a pope enjoying UA is dogmatic fact?
Could the answer be that the theological note of dogmatic facts is one step beneath infallibility (“merely” theologically certain), and that under certain circuмstances could in fact allow for exceptions?
Or is it simply as stated earlier, that the aforementioned clerics simply never considered the matter from the vantage of dogmatic facts (the ammo for this possibility being simply that none of them appear ever to have written about it)? And if they did consider the matter of sedevacantism vis-a-vis dogmatic facts and a pope enjoying UA, would they still maintain their former opinions (and if so, how)?