Of course, there is a third alternative, not held by the overwhelming majority of those on this forum, and by most who would be identified as "Trads": there is nothing in V2 or the Novus Ordo, in themselves, which, if adhered to and followed, would deprive a Catholic of salvation.

But that view would be similar to Stubborn's in the sense of holding that the most solemn expressions of the Magisterium - in ecuмenical councils, in its form of worship - are not capable of error or poisonous to salvific health. Of course, it would differ in that Stubborn would disagree that V2 or the Novus Ordo are expressions of the solemn or infallible Magisterium.

I just want to say that you have some really good posts DR, thanks!

Consider Quo Primum, the law established by Pope Pius V mandating using only the Missale Romanum forever, and that whoever breaks that law incurs "the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Consider the reason Pope Pius V had for making the penalty "incurring the wrath of Almighty God and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

The reason he authorized such a terrible penalty upon those who broke the law, was because he intended the penalty to be a stark deterrent, so that anyone so much as thinking of not using his missale or using some other missale would immediately abandon the idea and continue using his missale. 

The reason for all of this is because he knew that *that* Mass is the very marrow of our faith, and he knew that if his missale was ever abandoned or changed, that there would be a loss of faith wherever his missale was not used, which is exactly what we we have today.

What all this means, is it is because of the massive loss of faith we see today that we say V2 and it's Novus Ordo Missae are a distinct break from, and not in any way expressions of the Church's Magisterium. Pre-V2 and the Missale Romanum *are* expressions of the Church's Magisterium. The two are as different as night and day because one is the law, the other breaks the law, and for that, we see with our own eyes the penalty being incurred upon the world.

Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, disagrees:


“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”


Assuming Billuart’s quote is accurate, which one do you prefer to follow?

What contradiction?

Bellarmine is talking about MANIFEST heretics. 

I did a bit of research and just as I suspected, that quote was falsified! I’m not blaming you, but whoever was the source of this lie, and I believe I know who it is, should be flogged severely! Some people will go to any lengths just to say that some heretic dressed in white is the pope. Will you retract this “quote”?


From the website “Catholics in Ireland”:

I do not know who the "Catholics in Ireland" are. Let us presume them to be in good faith, and they may well be correct in that the reference may have been confused. However, the quote is almost certainly correct. Read this from the Dominicans of Avrille:

On the Deposition of the Pope (Part 2 of 2) - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us)

Billuart

Charles-René Billuart O.P. (1685-1757) is a French Thomist theologian.  He composed a Theology course which enjoys a high reputation.
In the Treatise on the Incarnation (De Incarnatione, diss. IX, a. II, § 2, obj. 2) Billuart defends the thesis that Christ is not the head of heretics, even occult.
It is objected that several doctors (Cajetan, Soto Cano, Suárez, etc.) say that the Pope fallen into occult heresy remains the head of the Church. So he must be a member.
Billuart denies the conclusion:
There is a difference between being constituted a head by the fact that one is influencing on the members, and being made a member by the fact that one is receiving an influx in itself;  this is why, while the pontiff [who] fell into occult heresy keeps the jurisdiction by which he influences the Church by governing her, thereby he remains the head;  but as he no longer receives the vital influx of Christ‘s faith or charity, who is the invisible and first head, he cannot be said to be a member of Christ or of the Church.
Instance: it is repugnant to be the head of a body without being a member, since the head is the primary member.
Answer:  I distinguish the first sentence: it is repugnant to a natural head, I agree; to a moral head, I deny it.  For example, Christ is the moral head of the Church, but he is not a member.  The reason for the difference is that the natural head cannot have an influence on other members without receiving the vital influx of the soul.  But the moral head, as the Pontiff is, can exercise the jurisdiction and the government over the Church and its members, although he is not informed by the soul of the Church, which are faith and charity, and that he does not receive any vital influx.   

 
In a word, the Pope is made a member of the Church through the personal faith which he can lose, and the head of the Church by the jurisdiction and the power which can be reconciled with an internal heresy. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars III, Venice, 1787, p. 66)

In the Treatise on Faith (De Fide diss IV to III, § 3, obj 2) Billuart defends the following thesis:   Heretics, even manifest (unless being denounced by name, or by leaving the Church themselves) keep the jurisdiction and absolve validly.
He considers the question of the case of a Pope, which is a special case, who receives his jurisdiction not from the Church, but directly from Christ:
It is nowhere stated that Christ continues to give jurisdiction to a manifestly heretical Pontiff, for this can be known by the Church and she can get another pastor.  However the common sentence [editor:  opinion] holds that Christ, by a special provision (ex speciali dispensatione), for the common good and peace of the Church, continues [to give] jurisdiction to a Pontiff even who is a manifest heretic, until he is declared manifestly heretical by the Church. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 33-34)
In the Treaty on the Rules of Faith (De regulis fidei, diss IV, VIII a, § 2, obj 2 and 6) Billuart defends the following thesis:  The sovereign Pontiff is superior to any council by authority and jurisdiction.
It is objected that the Pontiff is subject to the judgment of the Church in the case of heresy.  Why then he would not be subject also in other cases?
He replies:
This is because in the case of heresy, and not in other cases, he loses the pontificate by the fact itself of his heresy: how could remain head of the Church he who is no longer a member?  This is why he is subject to the judgment of the Church, not in order to be removed, since he is already deposed himself by heresy and he rejected the Pontificate (pontificatum abjecerit), but in order to be declared a heretic, and thus that he will be known to the Church that he is not anymore Pontiff: before this statement [of the Church] it is not permitted to refuse him obedience, because he keeps jurisdiction until then, not by right, as if he were still Pontiff, but in fact, by the will of God and accordingly disposing it for the common good of the Church. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 123)
Another objector remarked that the Church would be deprived of a remedy if she could not subject the Pope to the Council in the case that he would be harmful and would seek to subvert her.
Billuart replied that:
If the pope sought to harm her in the faith, he would be manifestly heretical, and he would thereby lose the Pontificate: however it should be necessary a declaration of the Church in order to deny him obedience, as we have said above. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 125)
If the Pope would harm the Church otherwise than in the faith, some say that one could resist him by the force of arms, however without losing his superiority.  St. Thomas Aquinas said it would be necessary to appeal to God in order to correct him or taking him away from this world (4 Sent. D. 19, q. 2, a. 2 q.1a 3, ad 2).
Billuart prefers to think that:
Whereas God governs and sustains his Church with a special Providence, he will not permit, as he has not permitted it so far, that this situation will happen, and if he permits it, he will not fail to give the means and the help appropriate. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 125)

Bravo PV!

I hope you will stick around and post more frequently.

Your posts on Billuart demonstrate irrefutably that even if the citation is in error (which I doubt), it is moot, since the very same opinion of Billuart is contained in two of his other books.

The reality is that careful study reveals sedes really have nobody of eminence to support their position.  Every classic theologian cited by QVD actually teaches the opposite of what they wish.

St. Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus, Billuart, Lagrange, Suarez, Cajetan, Vitoria, Torquemada, John of St. Thomas, Billot, etc. all side with us.

Time for sedevacantism to take its place along side donatism, albagensianism, and other long refuted heresies.

Sean, why do you continue to ignore the three Doctors of the Church I’ve quoted?

I can answer it for you now, because you *erroneously* believe they support your case.

On the Deposition of the Pope (Part 2 of 2) - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us)

St. Alphonsus Liguori

St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787), Doctor of the Church, devoted several writings in defense of Papal power against the conciliarist heresy (which gave to the councils a higher authority over the Pope).  Collected in one volume by a Redemptorist religious on the eve of Vatican Council I, (Du Pape et du concile; Tournai, Casterman, 1869) these writings have helped to prepare the definition of the dogma of Papal infallibility.  St. Alphonsus does not really treat the issue of a heretical Pope, and he excludes it so that it does not disturb his subject.  But, without entering into the details, he said repeatedly that the heretical Pope loses his authority only when his heresy has been confirmed by a council.  He clearly shares the view of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas.

In an essay on the authority of the Pope, added by St. Alphonsus at the end of the edition of his Moral Theology in 1748,² the Holy Doctor vigorously defends the superiority of the Pope over the council, but beforehand he declares:

• It should first be noted that the superiority of the Pope over the council does not extend to the dubious Pope in the time of a schism when there is a serious doubt about the legitimacy of his election; because then everyone must submit to the council, as defined by the Council of Constance.  Then indeed the General Council draws its supreme power directly from Christ, as in times of vacancy of the Apostolic See, as it was well said by St. Antoninus (Summa, p. 3 did. 23, c. 2 § 6).
• The same must be said of a pope who would be manifestly and exteriorly heretical (and not only secretly and mentally).  However, others argue more accurately that, in this case, the Pope cannot be deprived of his authority by the council as if it were above him, but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ, when the condition of this deposition [= the declaration of the council] is carried out as required.³

After presenting the views of Azorius (viz. that the council is above a manifestly heretical pope), St. Alphonsus nuances it and therefore ultimately follows the position of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, considered as “more accurate”.  St. Alphonsus did the same in his apologetical treatise Truth of Faith (1767):

“When in time of schism we are in doubt about the true Pope, the council may be convened by the cardinals and the bishops; and then each of the elected Popes is obliged to follow the decision of the council because, at that time, the Apostolic See is considered vacant.  It would be the same if the Pope would fall notoriously and perseveringly, persistently in some heresy.  However, there are those who affirm with more foundation that in the latter case, that the Pope would not be deprived of the papacy by the council as if it were superior to him, but he would be stripped directly by Jesus Christ because he would then become a subject completely disqualified and deprived of his office.” (Truth of Faith (1767), penultimate chapter “On the Superiority of the Roman pontiff over the councils”, art. I, Preliminary Notions, 2°)

St. Alphonsus defends again the same idea in 1768 in his refutation of the errors of Febronius:

If ever the Pope, as a private person, falls into heresy, then he would be immediately stripped of papal authority as he would be outside the Church and therefore he could not be the head of the Church.  So, in this case, the Church should not truly depose him, because no one has a superior power to the Pope, but to declare him deprived of the pontificate.  (We said: if the Pope fall into heresy as a private person, because the Pope as Pope, that is to say, teaching the whole Church ex cathedra cannot teach an error against Faith because Christ’s promise cannot fail). (Vindiciae pro suprema Pontificis potestate adversus justinum febronium, 1768, Chapter VIII, response to the 6^th objection)

By chance did you happen to read this part?:
“but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ”

Do you realize that he doesn’t support your case?

In 1961 Father David Sharrock C.SS.R., S.T.L wrote a dissertation for his doctorate in sacred theology published by The Catholic University of America entitled; "The Theological Defense of Papal Power by St. Alphonsus de Liguori". Saint Alphonsus follows Saint Robert Bellarmine on the heretical pope question on page 88.

David John Sharrock C.SS.R., S.T.L. "The Theological Defense of Papal Power By St. Alphonsus de Liguori" :

"If the pope ever, as a private person, were to fall into heresy, then at that moment, he would cease to be Pope, because he would then be outside the Church, and as such, would no longer be able to be the head of the Church. In this case, the Church would not depose him, because no one has authority above the Pope. It would simply declare that he had fallen from his pontificate. We have said: 'if the Pope as a private person were to fall into heresy', for the Pope, as Pope, ie. as teaching the whole Church ex cathedra, is not able to teach anything against the faith....."

But the Saint teaches that this heresy

.....must be a question of manifest and external heresy, not of an occult or mental heresy.

And again:

Then (when he is a manifest and external heretic) the Pope is not deprived of his power by the Council as by a superior, but..... He is immediately despoiled of it by Christ...."

In every instance, the quotes of St. Alphonsus supplied by PV suppose the Church’s declaration before the pope is deposed.

it appears your method is to extract piecemeal fragments from the quotes to make him say the opposite of what he is actually saying.

In doing so, you would create the “wavering Alphonsus,” same as sedes have, by the same artifice, created the “wavering Lefebvre.”

I believe earlier you stated such should be flogged?

Does this mean anything to you:

“but that he is deposed *immediately* by Jesus Christ”

You don’t believe Bruce Jenner is a woman, do you? I didn’t think so…..

Also odd that Avrille could say that Lagrange based his reasoning upon Billuart, if the Billuart quotation itself was false:

“Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is uh impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”

https://dominicansavrille.us/little-catechism-on-sedevacantism-part-i/

"Salza and Siscoe quote Billuart (who quotes Martin V’s Ad evitanda scandala) in a futile attempt to refute Bellarmine and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers....."

"Billuart’s error consists in his failure to make a critical distinction between those who lose their jurisdiction as a result of excommunication, and those who lose it ex natura hæresis, as a consequence of defecting from the faith and the Church, and thereby losing office and jurisdiction. Bellarmine points out that the decree only applies to excommunicates."

"The reason why Billuart’s failure to distinguish between those who lose their jurisdiction as a result of excommunication, and those who lose it ex natura hæresis, is of such great consequence, is that the ordinary and habitual jurisdiction of the officeholder is lost upon loss of office due to tacit resignation; but the excommunicates were provided with supplied jurisdiction in virtue of Ad evitanda scandala, and by the subsequent legislation that later replaced its provisions."

"Billuart erroneously deduced that 'heretics retain their jurisdiction', whereas all jurisdiction is lost by heretics, ex natura hæresis; but since heretics incur excommunication latæ sententiæ, jurisdiction was supplied by the decree Ad evitanda scandala. Billuart’s failure to distinguish between retaining jurisdiction and receiving supplied jurisdiction in virtue of the law itself led him into error on the question of loss of jurisdiction of a heretic pope."

"Billuart’s argues that since heretics retain jurisdiction 'for the benefit and tranquility of the faithful', therefore similarly, 'Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church.' Bellarmine’s words crush Billuart’s thesis: 'I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy.' Hence, there can be no exception by way of a 'special dispensation' from a loss of jurisdiction that results from the very nature of heresy. Heretics do not retain their jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is supplied to latæ sententiæ excommunicated heretics who not only lose all habitual jurisdiction, by their excommunication, but lose it ex natura hæresis. Billuart correctly notes that 'The pope… does not have his jurisdiction from the Church, but from Christ', but the pope would cease to be a member of the Church and lose all jurisdiction from Christ if he fell into manifest heresy; and since the pope cannot incur excommunication for so long as he remains pope, he could not receive supplied jurisdiction from such legislation as Ad evitanda scandala unless he were to fall from the Pontificate by tacit renunciation of office. Only then would he become minor quolibet catholico and accordingly incur excommunication latæ sententiæ, and straightaway receive supplied jurisdiction until his loss of office could be enforced by a declaratory sentence – but he would already have ceased to be pope."

All of the above quotes are taken from:

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.