Okay, so here I go into the shark tank...

Dear original poster,

You have chosen to remain anonymous understandably, probably due to the brow beating differentiates get in this forum in general. I too my biretta to Bumphrey and Bosco, as they make valid arguments on this particular question. Nevertheless, while acknowledging this, I do no argue this way regarding the formal vacancy of the Apostolic See. The Big question everyone has to answer is : is there continuity between pre-Vatican II Catholicism and post, i.e. Are they substantially different in the essential mission of the Church of teaching, governing and sanctifying? If the answer to this is 'Jo's then no one should be reacting, but should be submitting to the hierarchy as is DUE from the faithful

But if there is a substantial difference, voila! You've got a different religion! Ergo it is impossible for the Catholic Church to promulgate anything to the universal Church (i.e. To Catholics everywhere) that would be an obstacle to salvation. The fact that Montini, JP 1, JP2, Ratzinger, and. Bergoglio all have manifested intention to promulgate the Novus Ordo religion to the universal Church (which is a manifest sign to not intend the good of the Church) is a sign (not the cause) of them never being a true pope in the first place, though they were validly elected and thus were material successors to St. Peter. Note that I said "sign" and not "cause" because the latter argues they were formal popes, then lost the papacy (which the R&R folks happily point out the difficulties contained therein).

You mentioned in your original post that you essentially don't know who to believe. To that I say: read any Catholic catechism, any dogmatic theology manual, or any ecclesiology manual and you will see that it is precisely due to the divine assistance of Christ to the Church that prevents her from promulgating heresy and error. If you say otherwise, then the Catholic Church is just a human church,like the sects. 

I thought my points 1-4 explained well, the small, insignificant differences between us.  If you want to keep arguing based on that, then you've missed my point.  Good luck.

 
I think the bottom line here is that on the one hand you are ignoring traditional teaching from the Church on both schism, and on Popes teaching heresy, and on the other hand you're trying to argue that you're making sure you hold to Catholic tradition. There is a major conflict there and you really need to rethink your position.
 

the same accusation can be made against SVs.  i.e. we don't get to decide who is pope and who isn't pope. 

 
Important correction here. Catholics today need to only determine if heresy has been taught by the Pope. That is easy for anyone right now. Once we know that is the case, the Church has already decided for us that such a man is not Pope. The quotes all say it. Catholics need only look for heresy, and given that Francis has approved of such things as atheism, ѕυιcιdє, and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity (which are against the Natural Law), the only possible answer is that formal heresy has been committed. From there, the Church's teaching automatically takes effect.
 

To the anonymous poster who originated this topic:

I am a seminarian, who is also a sedevacantist. I would be happy to explain your questions, but as you see, these public arenas sometimes draw out idiots. Feel free to PM me. God bless and know of my prayers.

Thank you so much
only one problem: I have no idea how to private massage anyone here
:-[

I did not mean to imply that the pope is a practicing Catholic. Of course he is not

Originator,

Just click on my username, and on the page that comes up, click 'send PM/private message'. God bless