I would recommend TOFP, it's very well written, and nicely researched, on this particular question.

TOFP is a tragic mess that has been completely shredded.

You haven't been following the UA discussion.  For Sean, if anything it would be quite the opposite.

I don't understand how some people are missing the nuances here.

You can be a dogmatic Sedeplenist who says that to disagree with sedeplenism is necessarily heresy or schism, or you can be a Sedeplenist who believes that the Church could eventually rule in favor of vacancy but still believe Sedeplenism is the safer route, and neither is Sedevacantist or Sedeprivationist.

Heck you could even hold to Sedeplenism and be uncertain whether its dogmatic or not.

Quote from: SeanJohnson
I think this now describes me.

That's the difference between the SSPX and the Resistance: we know our theology and you do not. 

True or False Pope Endorsements, His Excellency Bishop Fellay: "until now—at least in the English-speaking world—only articles and booklets have been published against Sedevacantism and its related errors.  A comprehensive and definitive refutation, firmly grounded in ecclesiology, has been sorely needed. We thus pray that True or False Pope? finds its way to many Catholics of good will, be they of perplexed mind at the moment. Mr. Salza and Mr. Siscoe’s book will surely afford much clarity to the reader.” http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/endorsements.html See other endorsements by Priests, specifically Father Francois Laisney, Fr. Yves Le Roux and Father Steven Reuter. it's safe to say TOFP is SSPX-endorsed, and is solid Catholic Theology. Every informed traditional Catholic who wants to know how to refute SVism should read it. I'm not posting all of them here as it would be too long.

Heh. I already explained the Dr. Lamont thing. In St. Robert's view, the Pope loses his office after one or two warnings from many Cardinals and Bishops, after there is no longer universal acceptance, but before the Church makes the final declaration. I explained this by citing Fr. Ballerini. There's no suggestion in the Doctors of any Pope losing his office without any kind of warning, or while still having universal acceptance. That's a modern novelty, that arises from either ignorance of or unwillingness to deal with the UA teaching.

Your last statement is quite laughable, really, because I told Siscoe about Universal Acceptance, while they were still making the rather weak arguments from pertinacity alone some 7 odd years ago, but I'll let it pass. A sede acquaintance recently told me, an SSPX Priest in Australia told him, in the 90s, and for most of the first decade millenium, the sedes had the better arguments. R&R arguments were quite poor, some were incredibly weak. Many R&Rers couldn't answer sede arguments and believed them to be incontrovertible. It was the re-discovery of Universal Acceptance teaching in Cardinal Billot, St. Alphonsus et al that turned the tide in favor of R&R once more.

Heh. I already explained the Dr. Lamont thing. In St. Robert's view, the Pope loses his office after one or two warnings from many Cardinals and Bishops, after there is no longer universal acceptance, but before the Church makes the final declaration. I explained this by citing Fr. Ballerini. There's no suggestion in the Doctors of any Pope losing his office without any kind of warning, or while still having universal acceptance. That's a modern novelty, that arises from either ignorance of or unwillingness to deal with the UA teaching.

Your last statement is quite laughable, really, because I told Siscoe about Universal Acceptance, while they were still making the rather weak arguments from pertinacity alone some 7 odd years ago, but I'll let it pass. A sede acquaintance recently told me, an SSPX Priest in Australia told him, in the 90s, and for most of the first decade millenium, the sedes had the better arguments. R&R arguments were quite poor, some were incredibly weak. Many R&Rers couldn't answer sede arguments and believed them to be incontrovertible. It was the re-discovery of Universal Acceptance teaching in Cardinal Billot, St. Alphonsus et al that turned the tide in favor of R&R once more.

We all know what Siscoe says Bellarmine says.

I can teach a monkey to regurgitate it to you, but that won’t mean the monkey knows his theology.

Firstly, you have no idea what Bellsrmine teaches, because the only thing you know of it is what you have heard others say of him.

What I’m looking for you to do is quote both author and principle in the formation of an argument to prove Dr. Lamont is wrong, and Siscoe right.

From that point, we can take the next step, and repeat the same procedure with Cajetan and JST (whom you also have have never read).

Which really means you can’t even take tge first step, because contrary to your claim, you don’t really know any theology.

What you are good at, instead, is persevering in a position regardless of what is said, and posting things you found other people said to help you keep that position afloat.

I would go even further, and suggest to you that none of the SSPX priests have studied the sources, but instead endorsed the book based on the conclusion it reached.

Heh. And you would be blatantly wrong, as usual. Fr. Laisney expressly said he read every page of it.

I don't need to do your homework for you. I've read St. Robert many times, I know what the holy Doctor teaches, and it isn't what modern sedes think. Whether you know it or not, St. Alphonsus, Cardinal Billot, and yes, even Fr. Ballerini, are all of St. Robert's school only. I could cite you many eminent theologians like Cardinal Journet of John of St. Thomas' school, but I don't need to. You want to prove something, you bear the burden of proof. I don't need to, and I'm not going to do so here since its not the thread topic anyway.

I would only advise you to read why St. Robert rejects the second opinion more carefully before you presume to state St. Robert would have agreed with this person or that person. St. Robert taught the Pope is not removed from God, except through the action of men. Thus, the action of the men of the Church to determine the Pope's public pertinacity in heresy, i.e. to determine that the Pope is manifestly obstinate, is absolutely necessary. That is the true opinion of St. Robert. Read up and you will see.

I didn’t say they didn’t read the book.

I said they didn’t read the sources (ie., Bellarmine, et al).

In other words, they read a story whose conclusion they liked, and on that basis endorsed it.

Bishop Williamson conference on Vatican II, Prometheus book in NY, Oct 12-13, 2019

It reminded me of his old Seminary classes on Pascendi ("on Modernism") since Fr. Calderon's book, Prometheus, shows how Vatican II hangs together and really gives a 10,000 foot view of the New Religion. Pascendi also gives an excellent summary of Modernism.

These conferences were classic Bp. Williamson -- he was completely in his element.

For future conferences, sermons, and other great content by Resistance priests, I recommend you subscribe to the CathInfo channel on Youtube.
(The following link is also the best way to share "all" of the conference videos to your e-mail list, Facebook and other social media, your blog, etc.)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7MMuCvrXSbn98K7tSU_USA



Intro parts 1 & 2:

do you have access to the sheets Bishop Williamson uses during his presentation?