Quote from: Stubborn on Yesterday at 01:02:19 PM

Quote

The dogma is that the Holy Ghost will not allow a pope to teach heresy to the whole Church when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra, not when he teaches in his official capacity as pope.

.
This goes against (condemned) Proposition 22 of the Syllabus of Errors:

Quote

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.

.
While it would be impossible for the last 5 or 6 papal claimants to be true popes given their profession of heresy, it is not at all impossible that they were not true popes but only heretics claiming possession of the Holy See.

We are guaranteed that the Holy Ghost will not allow a pope to teach heresy to the whole Church in his official capacity as pope. We are not guaranteed that everyone who puts on a white cassock and claims to be pope will be the pope.

One of the most evident proofs of sedevacantism is the argument that any other explanation of the crisis is impossible.

Quote from: Yeti on Yesterday at 10:31:57 AM

Quote

While it would be impossible for the last 5 or 6 papal claimants to be true popes given their profession of heresy...

It is important to recognize that this is a mere opinion of some reknowned theologians (opposed by other reknowned theologians), and not Church teaching.

According to Arnoldo da Silveira, nearly all the defenders of the opinion that "God will never permit that a pope should fall into heresy" (i.e., the "first opinion" in S. Bellarmine's classifications) -which include S. Bellarmine, Suarez, Bouix, Billot, Pighi, and others- did not hold this opinion as certain, but only as "more probable."

This means they did not consider it impossible that a pope could be a heretic, only improbable.

It is also important to recognize that the adherents of this opinion named above (with the possible exception of Pighi), only and precisely because they consider that opinion as uncertain, go on to entertain other improbable positions (i.e., S. Bellarmine's classification of opinions 2-5), arguendo.

The conciliar popes have not defined anything ex cathedra so again, where's the connection?

This is, as per usual, the WRONG perspective on the problem.  All we know is that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, a false religion, and we know that the Holy Spirit would not allow legitimate papal authority to do these things.  As to why ... whether these men are heretics, or for some other reason, that's where one could debate the "opinions".  I for one hold that they were illegitimate first due to the fact that Cardinal Siri held the papal office until his death in 1989, and then starting with Ratzinger they haven't been valid bishops.  Or one could argue that a Montini, for instance, did legitimately hold the office, but was being blackmailed on account of his sodomy (not out of the question).  In that case, all his acts were null and void, as they were done under duress.  I don't even care if someone wants to claim that the real Paul VI was locked away or drugged and replaced by a double.  One can always debate the details, but one cannot debate the fact that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, and that this was not established by legitimate papal authority.

And this here is why Archbishop Lefebvre did not come out publicly as a sedevacantist ... because while he agreed in principle that the Holy Ghost's protection of the papacy would prevent the wreckage, he was less certain about how this actually came about.  I have no issues with that position.  Unfortunately, he did not emphasize this point enough so that generations of his followers have now basically become Old Catholics and have rejected the fact that the Church and the papacy are guided by the Holy Spirit and prevented from doing exactly what we've seen here.

The Universal Ordinary Magesterium is infallible, and the canonized popes of Vatican II preach a different religion.  To acknowledge there is a discontinuity with pre-Vatican II Catholicism, but its apostates can remain the head, would mean the Catholic Church has defected.