Ahem, allow me to introduce you to the concept of "moral certitude."

Moral certitude does not dismiss all possibility of error, but is so overwhelmingly probable, that theoretical plausibility of error is dismissed by the prudent man.

Just FYI, your "inline" responses make it very difficult to respond to you.  I had to copy-paste your response in after having found another place where you actually wrote some text in the body of your response.

I've already explained this a few times.  I find that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, and therefore its purported magisterium is not the Catholic Magisterium.

As per the teaching of Vatican I, the one place where there's room for reason and private judgment is in actually discerning the notes or authority of the Church in the first place.  Once that is known, the assent of faith is given to the Church's teaching.  Once one recognizes, based on the natural motives of credibility, that the Catholic Church has the authority of Christ, then one submits to that teaching authority, which authority becomes the formal motive of faith, as per the famous maxim of St. Augustine that he would not believe in the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to him.

Whether or not one understands theologically what exactly is going on, that is in fact the genesis and the raison d'etre of the entire Traditional movement.  This thing over here which calls itself the Conciliar Church, this is not the Catholic Church.  It is unrecognizable.  Thus even the simple faithful can make that discernment.  No theology degrees are needed.

As per the teaching of Vatican I, the one place where there's room for reason and private judgment is in actually discerning the notes or authority of the Church in the first place.

Then you are a Sedevacantist, and the seat is vacant.

I need to find again that audio recording of the Archbishop.  I transcribed it at one point here on CI.  Despite SeanJohnson's wishful thinking, it's clear that the Archbishop entertained the notion that the See might very well be vacant, but he held back on coming out with it and wished to defer to the Church's authority, which is actually the right attitude.  +Vigano does the same thing.  He speculated that it's possible that Bergoglio might have been invalidly elected, but said this must be determined by the Church.

Not necessarily.  The only condition is that the destructive acts that we see here did not emanate from the Church's authority.

Father Chazal's sede-impoundism works nicely, or some sedeprivationist variant of Cajtean / John of St. Thomas.  I do not rule out that Paul VI was blackmailed.  I am personally of the opinion that Siri had been elected and the Church was put into a state of eclipse.  Or sedevacantism is very possible as well.

This is the same line of thinking Archbishop Lefebvre articulated in that famous audio.

He declared out of the gate that it is not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Spirit, could perpetrate such destruction.  So he beings speculating.  Was Montini out of his mind?  Was he being blackmailed?  He didn't think so.  He said then that it's possible that the See is vacant.  But then he concludes with it being a mystery.

Archbishop Lefebvre never jettisoned the notion that this degree of destruction is not possible due to the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps the papacy generally free from error.  He often stated that he might have to go sedevacantist, but preferred to wait, to leave it to the Church's authority to decide this "some day".

So I echo these sentiments 100%.  I cannot be sure what exactly happened.  I do not rule out the Montini being blackmailed theory either.  But we don't have smoking gun proof of any of this, just suspicions and doubts and speculation.

I'm not a sedevacantist.  I am an indefectibilist, and that indefectibilism leads to serious doubts and questions about who these men are.  And that's as far as we can go absent the intervention of Church authority.

I agree with the R&R (and sedeprivationist) criticism of sedevacantism that you can't, as a principle, have Catholics going around effectively deposing popes.  While you can explain sedevacantism to "Aunt Helen," what give "Aunt Helen" the right to conclude on her own that the See is vacant?

I agree with the R&R (and sedeprivationist) criticism of sedevacantism that you can't, as a principle, have Catholics going around effectively deposing popes.  While you can explain sedevacantism to "Aunt Helen," what give "Aunt Helen" the right to conclude on her own that the See is vacant?

I cannot be sure what exactly happened.

I haven't read through all the thread yet, but just wondering, why do laypeople even have to come to a "definitive" conclusion about whether the NO is licit or not?  Why can't they just say "listen, I think its sketch for XYZ good reason, Rome says we can attend the SSPX (see here: https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/ask-father-whats-the-truth-about-the-sspx/ ) they pray for the pope, they haven't joined a sect, and even Rome doesn't seem to think the laity are responsible for the issues with the SSPX one way or another since they say you can attend there" and so go to the SSPX?  Why do the laity need to answer *any* high level theological questions in order to justify attending the SSPX?  If the person feels that the SSPX church is the church that's going to benefit them the most spiritually, it seems like they can attend there.

And no, that's not me endorsing relativism.  This is just me saying not even Rome says you can't attend there.

But we have to come to grips with how we can say that it's OK for Catholics to basically ignore the Magisterium.