"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" - to which the sedes add - "unless you don't believe he's the pope."  Whew! Good thing they add this disclaimer.

By adding this disclaimer sedes do not refuse subjection to the pope.  Ergo, they've made themselves not outside the Church and there can be salvation for sedes - unless they remove their disclaimer.

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" - to which the sedes add - "unless you don't believe he's the pope."  Whew! Good thing they add this disclaimer.

By adding this disclaimer sedes do not refuse subjection to the pope.  Ergo, they've made themselves not outside the Church and there can be salvation for sedes - unless they remove their disclaimer.

That's actually correct, bonehead, even if you're too dense to understand it.  Canon Lawyers have been repeatedly cited stating that one is not to be considered a schismatic if they refuse submission based upon well-founded doubts about the legitimacy of an alleged pope.  Similarly, St. Vincent Ferrer was subject to the wrong pope, i.e. not subject to the pope, because he was mistaken regarding the identity of the actual pope.  Those things are referred to as material error.  But when you claim that someone is certainly the pope, and yet refuse subjection to him anyway, you are in a state of formal error, and are formally withholding subjetion to the Supreme Pontiff, putting you outside the Catholic Church.  In other words, IF the SVs are wrong (we're not), then we're in material error, and remain formally subject to the Supreme Pontiff (while erring about his true identity).  You on the other hand are in formal error, declaring that it's permissible in principle to withhold subjection.  But I might as well be writing Chinese in using terms like formal and material with you.  This is for the understanding on third parties who might be reading this thread.

You can't answer the contradiction, so you throw a trantrum by unleashing a series of ad hominems to avoid addressing it.

That's actually correct, bonehead, even if you're too dense to understand it.  

You can't answer the contradiction, so you throw a trantrum by unleashing a series of ad hominems to avoid addressing it.

That's actually correct, bonehead, even if you're too dense to understand it.  

Correction, the last Pope died on May 2, 1989.

Also, your church allows eating meat on Fridays (except, supposedly, during Lent).

Stubborn, can you give me an example of anything that you DO listen to Bergoglio on which is not heretical?

For instance, in the NO church (apparently your church) Bergoglio “canonized” the heretic Montini. This is not necessarily heretical. Why don’t you (maybe you do?) follow your pope’s directive and pray to Montini for his intercession?

Also, your church allows eating meat on Fridays (except, supposedly, during Lent). Would you ever have the audacity to council any Catholic to not follow your church’s rules with regard to fasting or abstinence? (BTW, this also has nothing to do with heresy)

After you answer the question posed to you (first)?  How do you reconcile the fact that you must subject to the Supreme Pontiff to be in the Church and to be saved, whereas you refuse subjection to the man you claim is the Supreme Pontiff?

My answer to you is my signature. You believe the bishops are infallible when they teach anything in unison with the pope, well, St. Peter (first pope) and the Apostles (first bishops) all teach in unison that "We ought to obey God, rather than men." The pope is a man, and if he ever commands something of us that we can do without offending God, then we must obey. Simple.
 

QUESTION:
So faithful Catholics had a pope(s) who wanted to bind us to heresy but we did not listen to him. What crime or sin are we guilty of?