Yes, I've gone over this on other threads.  +Sanborn presents SP as if it were SV.  Other adherents of the SP position have also pointed this out.

Yes so who articulates the position clearly and authentically? The position you articulated above seems reasonable but I wouldn’t call it SP- Francis is still materially Pope( insofar as we recognize his material occupancy  of the chair and resist him, the position could still be classed as a variant of R&R- albeit not “classical R&R” as you put it) 

Here's one example.  +Sanborn persists in his dogmatism regarding not putting una cuм in the Canon.  But if someone is materially Pope-designate, it would not necessarily be inappropriate to insert his name in the Canon with the una cuм.  So for him the material occupancy is meaningless, whereas the classic SP would be very similar to what Father Chazal articulated in terms of the implications of the material occupation, that the Pope (or Pope-designate) remains the visible sign of unity for the Church.  He's also backed away from the notion that the current Cardinals could legitimately elect a pope or that Bergoglio could convert and resume the papacy.  So it you take those implications out of the mix, the distinction between SV and SP become meaningless.

Part of the SP mentality has to do with the notion that only the Church has the authority to handle the matter with any degree of finality, and that stance is largely incompatible with dogmatic sedevacantism.  SP is by its nature a much more moderate variant of sedevacantism, and it actually addresses many of the R&R objections against sedevacantism proper.

I have had discussions with other sede friends and we also believe Bishop Sanborns stance on the una-cuм is inconsistent with the Cassiciacuм Thesis.  I do agree with him about una cuм though...i will no longer assist at a mass una cuм a heretic.

You [2Vermont] need to be careful not to slide into schismatic dogmatic sedevacantism.

So what? You, Ladislaus, you already slid into "schismatic dogmatic anti-(dogmatic sedevacantism)".

Yeti tried to explain it to you recently in your Jenkins-thread. But unfortunately you don't even listen. You haven't been careful and thus already got lost in "schismatic dogmatic anti-(dogmatic sedevacantism)".

 


[/IRONY OFF]

It is interesting that Plenus Venter cites St Bellarmine with respect to secret heretics, but fails to include his reference to secret heretics in his fifth and true opinion when speaking of manifest heretic popes:

Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.

I don't know why you would find that interesting, 2Vermont, since the other quote clearly illustrates the point I was making.
 
Rather, you are just grasping at any opportunity to promote Sedevacantism.

What is far more interesting is that you mislead readers by omitting St Robert Bellarmines's explanation of what constitutes a manifest heretic:
"Now in my judgement, such an opinion cannot be defended (that of Cajetan). For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason". St Robert continues: "The authority is of St Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned..."

Pertinacity must be demonstrated by admonitions, says St Robert, to demonstrate the Pope as a manifest heretic, according to the authority of Sacred Scripture.
 
Where are the censures, the admonitions, for the Popes since Pope Pius XII? Indeed, who would give them? Is it sufficient for anyone to simply judge that a Pope must be pertinacious? Is this the opinion St Robert holds? Are you certain? is it infallible? Clearly, when put in the context of everything St Robert says in this discussion this is not his opinion, his non-infallible opinion! Yet dogmatic Sedevacantists alone feel qualified to dogmatically settle the matter.

Moreover, once pertinacity has been demonstrated by admonitions, is that the end of the story? Can anyone then make the judgement that the Pope is deposed? Is a declaration by the Church of his heresy necessary? Theologians debate, but dogmatic Sedevacantists pontificate! It just beggars belief!

Listen again to what St Robert teaches about the deposition of heretical bishops: "...if the pastor is a bishop, they (the faithful) cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff" - De Membris Ecclesiae, Lib I De Clericis, Cap 7 (Opera Omnia, Paris: Vives, 1870, pp 428-429). You will note that Bellarmine's proof from 'authority and reason' of his fifth opinion applies just the same to an heretical bishop. Manifest heresy renders you outside the Church whether you are a Pope, bishop, priest or layman. Yet the bishop is not ipso facto deposed?

So an heretical bishop is not deposed without due process. The Sovereign Bishop, however, is deposed by Divine Law and judged such by anyone? Pope by Divine Right, with no rights whatsoever, as Fr Chazal aptly comments in Contra Cekadam...

Ladislaus, son of Boleslaus.

It is the likes of you that give me my full stomach. Yes, I've had a gutful! (Only slightly serious, Lad, it is more Bishop Fellay and his accomplices that are responsible for that phenomenon)

I apologise to all for dragging out this thread, I missed this comment of Lad's which I think requires a response.

The audacity of you, Lad, to come onto a Resistance website and attack one of our learned and holy bishops, and tell me I am disqualified from the discussion. It is you, who pervert the faithful followers of Archbishop Lefebvre with your false doctrine, and attack those whom we esteem, who ought to be barred from the discussion and the site, at least until you pull your head in.

This is not about the broader question of R&R vs. sedevacantism, and I'm not going to bother engaging in another 50 pages of debate on the subject.

What's at issue is your deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of Archbishop Lefebvre as being categorically and even (as some of you claim) dogmatically opposed to sedevacantism.  When you engage in such distortion, you immediately disqualify yourself from as being a candidate for any rational discussion of the subject due to obvious bias.

As for criticizing a Resistance bishop, these men are not popes and are not infallible.  In fact, they don't have any kind of authority in the Church.  Oh, wait, with R&R you're allowed to criticize and bash the Vicar of Christ, but the Resistance bishops are beyond all criticism.  That's the same crap the SSPX have pulled for decades, that while it's a free-for-all when it comes to attacking the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, the SSPX authorities are beyond all criticism.

And Bishop Thomas Aquinas does the same thing you do, distorting the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre.

For those interested in actually seeking the truth about what +Lefebvre thought about the possibility of the See being vacant, they can read his own words and decide for themselves:
http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/

John of St Thomas says "So long as it has not been declared to us juridically, that he is an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains, as far as we are concerned (quoad nos), a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned", but Ladislaus says (pontificates): "If they do not have the faith, they are not Catholic.  If they are not Catholic, they do not legitimately hold authority in the Church.", and "to keep claiming that these men don't have the faith but then have legitimate authority in the Church, it's total desperation, an emotional reaction against sedevacantism ... but it's totally bankrupt". John of St Thomas, stand corrected!

The only people who believe John of St Thomas had it right are the R&R folks.  The Novus Ordo folks, the Resignationists (e.g. Fr. Paul Kramer), sede privationists, and sede vacantists all recognize that JST is not correct and that St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, had the correct view (regardless of the nonsense that Siscoe and Salsa are peddling about Bellarmine's view being the same as JST).  But let's suppose that JST is correct.  The SSPX (R&R) view is that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church led almost the entire Church (save for the SSPX, apparently) into a silent apostasy.  So much for the indefectibility of the Church!  If on the other hand you limit the hierarchy of the Church to only those clergy who have remained faithful to the traditional doctrine of the Church, then I would have to point out that the Church has already made a judgement about the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo "popes".  We don't follow them!

Perhaps a better distinction regarding the various Traditional Catholic groups, rather than R&R vs. sedevacantist, would be whether or not people believe that the V2 papal claimants still have authority in the Church.

Do the V2 papal claimants still have authority in the Church?

NO -- Sedevacantists, Sedeprivationists, Father Chazal
YES -- classic R&R

Do the V2 papal claimants still hold office in the Church?

NO -- Sedevacantists
YES -- classic R&R, Father Chazal, sedeprivationists

It's this division that helps explain why Sean Johnson puts Father Chazal in the R&R camp, while I put him in the non-R&R camp.  I distinguish between classic R&R and Father Chazal's "R&R".

Classic R&R is the only position that holds that these Conciliar popes have held legitimate authority in the Church; they believe that they have authority when they teach/command what is true/moral but not when they teach/command what is erroneous/immoral.

And this is why I'm perfectly fine with Father Chazal's positon.  He does not impute the destruction in the Church to legitimate papal authority.  I care very little for the academic debate between Bellarminists and Cajetanists/JSTists.  All I care about is the pernicious allegation of classic R&R which holds that legitimate papal authority can destroy the Church's doctrine/discipline and can lead souls to hell.

You KNOWINGLY misrepresent Fr. Chazal's position, and have done so for quite awhile. And no, I'm not going to belabor the point.

Get off this thread, Meg.  You provide no meaningful contribution whatsoever.  There's no misrepresentation.  Father Chazal clearly states that they "have no authority" and are impounded and can be ignored entirely.  I went through his entire two-hour presentation and cited chapter and verse (gave the exact minute and second marks.  You have no earthly idea what you're talking about.  You have no idea with the authority vs. office distinction even means.

You clearly have a psychological impairment about the issues raised by sedevacantists to the point that you cannot get past words and terms and semantics.