CathInfo.com

Here is summed up by Ladislaus the essential problem of sedevacantism, a problem that Archbishop Lefebvre understood, but Ladislaus, sadly, does not.

The sedevacantist effectively sets himself up as pope. He takes this opinion, expressed by Ladislaus, and promulgates it as absolute, definitive, dogmatic, binding on the Catholic conscience. Just as we see above. He adds something to the Catholic Faith. That is not Catholic. It is neither 'absurd', nor 'petty' to want to keep someone from embracing such an error, of which the Dominicans of Avrille said in their Small Catechism of Sedevacantism: "This is a position that has not been proven at the speculative level, and it is imprudent to hold it at a practical level, an imprudence that can bear very serious consequences.”

The folly of such a line of conduct should be immediately obvious by considering the opinion of just a few eminent theologians and canonists:

1. BILLUART: "The more common opinion holds that Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church" - De Fide, Diss V, A III No 3 Obj 2

2. GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE: "...a secretly heretical Pope would not remain a member of the Church in act (...) but he would keep the jurisdiction by which he has influence over the Church by governing it. Thus he would keep the reason (or nature) of being the head towards the Church, on which he would have an influence, but he would cease to be a member of Christ, the invisible and First Head. Thus, in a most abnormal fashion, he would be the head of the Church by jurisdiction, but he would not be a member.

"This would be impossible if it would be about a physical head, but this is not contradictory if we talk about a secondary moral head: The reason being whereas a physical head cannot exercise influence on the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul; a moral head, as the Roman Pontiff is, can exercise a jurisdiction on the Church even if he receives no influence of internal faith and charity from the soul of the Church.

"So, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, that he can lose, and the head of the visible Church by jurisdiciton and the power that can coexist with internal heresy..." - De Christo Salvatore, 1946, p232  Note: Fr Garrigou-Lagrange is obviously only referring to internal heretics, but it is relevant to the quote from Ladislaus.

3. JOHN OF ST THOMAS: "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" - Cursus Theologici II-II, De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, Disp II, Art III, De Depositione Papa

4. FR PAUL LAYMANN SJ: "It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns his own person, could fall into heresy, even a notorious one, by reason of which he would deserve to be deposed by the Church, or rather declared to be separated from her. (...) Observe, however, that, though we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might be able to become a heretic and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church, (...) nevertheless, for as long as the Pope is tolerated by the Church and publicly recognised as the universal pastor, he is still endowed, in fact, with his power as pontiff, in such a way that all his decrees would have no less force and authority than they would if he were truly faithful" - Theol. Mor. Bk 2 Tract 1 Ch 7 p153

5. SUAREZ: "I affirm: If he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declarative sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church (...) In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it should be the Cardinals; and the Church could undoubtedly assign this faculty to them, above all if it were established with the consent and decision of the Supreme Pontiffs, just as was done for the election. But to this day we do not read anywhere that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, it must be affirmed that of itself it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law, there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can read Cardinal Albano expounding upon this point at length in De Cardinalibus (q.35, 1584 ed, vol 13, p2)" - De Fide, Disp 10, Sect 6, n 10, pp 317-18

6. CAJETAN: "... a heretical Pope is not deprived (of the Papacy) by divine or human law... Other bishops if they become heretics are not deprived ipso facto by divine or human law; therefore, neither is the Pope. The conclusion is obvious, because the Pope is not in a worse situation than other bishops - On the Comparison of the Authority of Pope and Council, Ch XIX

7. BELLARMINE: "...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)  Obviously not referring to the Pope, but still relevant to Ladislaus's quote.

"I honestly don't care where he ends up ultimately" (Ladislaus). I do. I hope he ends up in the truth. It matters! It has implications for the salvation of souls... "a position that has not been proven at the speculative level,.. it is imprudent to hold it at a practical level, an imprudence that can bear very serious consequences.”

Does the Archbishop call Pope Benedict XVI as "Ratzinger"?
I heard, that it was common for Italians to refer to the Pope by their family name.