Let me attempt, yet again, to put the sedevacantist position in syllogism:
- A heretic cannot be pope or retain the papacy.
- Modern popes (since Pius XII or Vatican II) have been heretics.
- Popes since Pius XII cannot be valid popes.
My issue is with (2): Who says?? Etymologically heresy means one has a choice in the context of doctrine. Without a doubt it is the Church herself, by the very nature of heresy, which declares people or ideas to be outside of the norm, that is, to be heretical.
- Are sedevacantists declaring themselves to be the Church in every sense, yet without a visible head??
- Is the Radical Traditionalist position (especially those who deny any valid claimant to the papacy) a means vs ends discussion??
- Is all Radical Traditionalism an elevation of papacy over Church??