I saw how sedeism divides the faithful, that's what it does, that's all it does, it serves absolutely no other purpose and does not profit anyone's salvation in any way, shape or form. And whoever disagrees, then how does one profit from it and aside from division, what other purpose does sedeism serve?

Yes, there are so many divisions now, sadly.  It appears to be true that the Shepherd was struck and the sheep are scattered.  Well, I guess it has to come to pass so there is no avoiding it really.

 Plus Our Lord said he came to divide.  Still, I have long time friends who are Novus Ordo or FSSP and our disagreement doesn't mean we can no longer be friends.  

As to the purpose the Sede position serves, in my case anyway, it's clear that Lucifer wants a One World Theosophical Religion in which everyone gives worship.  Now Traditional Catholics would never fully consent to giving worship to a pantheon of gods of course so they have to make it rather sneeky so as to deceive the elect.

That is why I can't bring myself to worship "una cuм", in union with Francis.

I don't share the same religion as him.

I don't share the same gods.

Yes, there are so many divisions now, sadly.  It appears to be true that the Shepherd was struck and the sheep are scattered.  Well, I guess it has to come to pass so there is no avoiding it really.

 Plus Our Lord said he came to divide.  Still, I have long time friends who are Novus Ordo or FSSP and our disagreement doesn't mean we can no longer be friends. 

As to the purpose the Sede position serves, in my case anyway, it's clear that Lucifer wants a One World Theosophical Religion in which everyone gives worship.  Now Traditional Catholics would never fully consent to giving worship to a pantheon of gods of course so they have to make it rather sneeky so as to deceive the elect.

That is why I can't bring myself to worship "una cuм", in union with Francis.

I don't share the same religion as him.

I don't share the same gods.

Well, I would still like to know what purpose sedeism serves and how it profits souls unto salvation. Certainly Satan wants to destroy the Church, I am sure that's not what sedeism means to you.

The Church has always taught that to omit the name of the pope in the canon of the mass for whatever reason, is an act of schism. Obviously sedes believe their reason is above reproach, yet the popes do say in no uncertain terms; "for whatever reason."

Ex Quo:
"Let him know that he separates himself from the communion of the whole world, whoever does not mention the name of the Pope in the Canon, for whatever reason of dissension" [...] those who, for whatever reason of dissension, do not observe the custom of mentioning the name of the Apostolic Pontiff in the sacred mysteries, are separated from the communion of the whole world."

Ex Quo even gives the reason why non-una cuм is condemned, because not only is omitting the name of the pope  an act of schism, it is a major cause of disunity.  Per Ex Quo, una cuм "is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity" and "a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church." This is why Ex Quo teaches: "the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism." It just does.

Yes, you're right, Satan definitely wants to destroy the Church. 

Well, maybe that's not the best description though. 

Actually, it appears that he wants to change the Church...or change the religion of the Church into something that worships him, or at least worships false gods like Allah (as it states in V2) and Pajamamama and whatever else.

This still does not answer what purpose sedeism serves and how it profits souls unto salvation. I've asked this a few times over the last few years and have never gotten an answer. Yes, the Church is in a crisis, yes the popes are heretics, yes the devil wants to destroy the Church - none of these truths answer the purpose of sedeism or how one profits from it.

And that is a good question about the prohibition from omitting the name of the pope during Mass.

I can definitely see why it would scare people from assisting at a non "una-cuм" mass!

I could be wrong, but I believe that would be referring to "Catholic" popes. In other words, popes who actually practice the Catholic Faith so as to remain in the Church.

If the Dali Lama were somehow voted in as pope (hey anything could happen these days, right?)

would it be okay to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass  "una cuм", in union with him?

Wouldn't that be a great sacrilege?

In this matter, it is par for the course to be contrary to what the Church teaches when we reference wild hypothetical scenarios such as the Dali Lama or women popes or whatever, simply due to the fact that the conciliar popes have all been elected according to the laws of the Church. IOW, if you want to go contrary to the law of the Church, then go right ahead and use wild hypotheticals as a means to do so.

This is to say the only thing using wild hypotheticals can do, is lead to schism and put one in schism.

Ex Quo does not use wild hypotheticals, it states plainly that his name is not to be omitted and why. They say this without any disclaimers or exceptions, and by the words "for whatever reason" they are saying that there are no exceptions. Which means what they are saying is absolute. As such, the presumption must be they were well aware of future heretical popes, not presume that "they only mean "Catholic popes."

All I am attempting to do is point out the teaching of the Church, not my teaching, the Church's teaching, the clear words taught by the Church that cannot err, which is the Magisterium's teaching which is always without error, and the teaching of popes who, per most sedes, cannot teach error - all teach that the name of the pope, for whatever reason, is not to be omitted - and that to do so is the cause of disunity and is an act of schism.

And if you believe and accept the teaching of the Church via Ex Quo without exception, then your meme would not only apply to the conciliar popes, it would also apply to sedes who celebrate Mass non-una cuм - per Ex Quo.

Gotta go with Stubborn on this one:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/ 

You don't need to read an entire book to find the balanced Catholic view of the overall inerrancy of the Church and the Magisterium.

Msgr. Fenton sums it up here --
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

Apart from the dogmatic SVs who have overreacted to the errors of R&R by exaggerating the scope of infallibility, Catholics generally acknowledge the limits of "infallibility in the strict sense".

But we're not talking about a mistake here or there in an expository section of an Encyclical.  We're talking about a thoroughly corrupted and polluted Catholic Magisterium (according to R&R) and the imposition of a Public Rite of Worship that harms souls and offends God.  Those of you who claim this is possible are blasphemers, and you're Old Catholic heretics.  There's no way to salvage your R&R as remotely Catholic.

You could either go the route of Bishop Schneider who says that V2 can be fixed with one or two slight amendments or else you have to hold that V2 and the NOM were not given to the Church by legitimate papal authority that's freely exercised.

You desperately cling to the limits of strict infallibility, but create a monstrous caricature of a Church that can have the 99% of her Magisterium that doesn't fall within the limits be completely corrupt, which is both blasphemous and heretical.

So, apart from the 3-4 dogmatic definitions during the 19th and 20th centuries, the rest is totally up for grabs.

Nor can you explain why the PREVIOUS Magisterium that V2 cotradicts couldn't have been in error, rather than V2 ... apart from your garbage tautology that "if something is true it's true, but if false then false" ... while leaving your private judgment as the arbiter of what falls into either category, i.e. making yourself the ultimate Magisterium except of course for solemn dogmatic definitions.

It's shameful what you people do and promote, substituting the Catholic Faith with a rebranded Old Catholicism ... all to salvage this Satanic cabal that has infiltrated the Church.  To salvage Jorge Bergoglio and to have a guy walking around Rome in a while cassock, you throw the entire Church under the bus.

Disgraceful, heretical, blasphemous.  You need to repent before it's too late.

See, R&R don't even HAVE to blaspheme the Church and slide into Old Catholicism now that Father Chazal has proposed a system that completely salvages "the papacy" and the honor of the Holy Catholic Church, the spotless Bride of Christ.  You don't have to throw out the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, Doctors, and theologians prior to Vatican II.  You don't have to burn all the pre-Vatican II theology "manuals" on a bonfire.

I have repeatedly asked why R&R don't jump on board with Father Chazal?

Any answer to that?

You have an "out" where you don't have to be "sedevacantists" (that dirty word) while you can also preserve the integrity of the Holy See and of the Holy Catholic Church in general.  You can still have your Bergoglio walking around the Vatican gardens (or rolling in his wheelchair) while not having to throw the Church under the bus to do it.

Your opening sentence is both heretical and blasphemous:
Even R&R should admit that the "papacy" does not "deteriorate" even if unworthy men hold the office.

You need to retract this.

That could be Step 1 in a 12 Step Program to make the "Journey Home" back to Catholicism from the Old Catholicism you have slid into.

Loudestmouth-

You do realize you are an idiot whose delusions (flat earth; no pope for 65 years; all catechisms have taught error for 450 years because nobody could translate voto properly, Siri nonsense, etc) place your sanity in question.

Why would anyone listen to a quack like you?