Sure, that would not have been sufficient had Drew bothered to produce a single theological source on the subject to challenge the CE.  He had absolutely nothing but his wishful thinking.

If the Priest is reasonable, we can make allowance for the difficulties for his conscience. This is what +ABL did, and some wrongly portray +ABL as almost sede because of that. No, that's wrong. +ABL made allowance for the sedes if they would be reasonable. Those who proved unreasonable were expelled in 1983. +Sanborn's position, and those like it, as expressed by that Priest under him, is clearly extremist in the extreme. It is not open to reason. There is hardly anything that can be reasonably done in such cases. If the Priest is open to reason, he will accept praying for the Pope for the sake of those who assist at his Mass believing it to be una cuм the Pope.

I hold that we're in a time analogous to that of the Great Western schism, where there's less-than-absolute certainty regarding the identity of the Pope.  Let's not get into the Universal Acceptance issue here, since we've had many threads on the subject.

...

Given this situation, if I were a priest, I would keep the phrase "una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro" but then not insert the name, as a profession of formal intention to be in Communion with the papacy, even if there's doubt about who that is at the moment.

You should be banned from this forum for deceiving simpler minds.

Well, tell that to Archbishop Lefebvre, who most certainly doubted their legitimacy (except for during the 1980-1984 timeframe).

“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

“To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of ɛƖɛctıon are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)

“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)

You don’t seem to be able to perceive a qualitative distinction between “it is not impossible” and “I doubt he is pope.”

No, you completely ignore the formal motive of faith and rule of faith.  Someone could hypothetically believe all the Church dogmas, but if they discerned these based on their own private interpretation of Scripture, then they do not believe them based on the proper formal motive of faith.  I say hypothetically because in the practical order it's impossible for private interpretation to lead to all of the exact dogmas taught by the Church, which is why there are approximately 23,000 different Christian "denominations" out there.

If you followed your "proper formal motive of faith" you wouldn't be here but on Catholic Answers defending the Conciliar Church. If not, tell us why not? On what basis do you reject the magisterium of the Conciliar Church?


Indeed, not every pronouncement of the Magisterium is guaranteed to be free from error, but we're not quibbling about the notes or extent of infallibility here.
With the Conciliar Church we have an institution that has become so corrupted that it lacks the marks of the Church, that the Magisterium is thoroughly polluted with Modernism, and is leading souls into grave error.  We have a Universal Discipline that produced and promulgated a Rite of Worship that is offensive to God.  We have the canonization of the chief culprits in this destruction of the Church.  All this, when, taken as a whole, would constitute a defection of the Church.  Or, to put it a different way, when the Church has officially (in its Magisterium, Worship, Canon Law, etc.) gotten so bad and corrupt that it requires that we separate from submission to this teaching and this form of worship, i.e., that it requires the existence of a Traditional movement, then that would constitute a defection of the Church.  If that doesn't, then there's no such thing as a defection of the Church.

True popes of the true Church could not do this if the Church is "indefectible" as you understand it. Or do you disagree? Please explain. 

How could you not be Sedevacantist then if these popes have taught a universal discipline and rite of worship (among other things) that "would constitute a defection of the Church"? Truly, I'm trying to understand your position.