😂😂😂 You and DR are too much! Anything but sedevacantism. You’d burn down every dogma just to say that the perverted communist in white is a pope! That is truly sick.

You really should simply admit as I have, that you have no idea which Divine Law. While you're at it, why not also admit you have no idea what the purpose of sedeism is or how it profits anyone unto salvation.

So, like Daly, you are arguing from what you say are necessary conclusions from Scripture, and for you that’s Luke 22:32.

Was that so hard for you? So much of the above was unnecessary.

As to your question, I don’t know. I do know the Church teaches a woman can’t, and I do not question it. Since I have not made the assertion that it is divine law, I don’t need to source it the claim.

No, it wasn’t hard, but I assumed that questions like that are self explanatory. To me the question was so utterly basic Catholicism that I don’t get why any Catholic would ask such a thing. Sorry for being rude before.

You really should simply admit as I have, that you have no idea which Divine Law. While you're at it, why not also admit you have no idea what the purpose of sedeism is or how it profits anyone unto salvation.

You want to know in what way “sedeism” profits me? Maybe because I have extremely profound respect for the Church and the Papacy. Your words prove that you think otherwise. I would never dare to speak about or treat the man you consider a pope the way you do, if I thought he was a true pope, EVER!

We will soon have a similar "Ratzinger Theory" from the Bennyvacantists.  Brother Bugnolo is already stating that the Church will have a conclave in the next 30 days.  Of course, this won't happen, but they will believe that there is a hidden pope....Benny's true successor, of course.

Within a Month, the Catholic Church will have a new Roman Pontiff | From Rome

Oh wow....maybe this will be the "bishop in white" who had to flee Rome in the fake third secret?

I found these quotes from Stubborn, but I apologize to him because it seems that he has restrained himself somewhat from speaking badly about his popes:



”Bergoglio and all the conciliar popes have been heretics.”

“he helped that whole treasonous effort, he left the fate of the whole world in the hands of Paul VI, Bugnini, JP2, and etc., etc.

If you can blind yourself to what you think Siri actually did, then think he would have been a better pope than Paul VI, then  I can say that Paul VI was most likely the lesser of two evils. . .while being mindful that it could also be that Siri may well have handed the baton to Paul VI knowing that Paul VI was a better destroyer than himself.”

Glad you realized that stubborn generally refrains from saying much about the ill-deeds of the conciliar Popes.

I think that it's illogical that a sedevacantist can say whatever he or she thinks about a heretic pope, but they don't want non-sedevacantists to do the same.

By this logic, a non-sedevacantist wouldn't even be able to consider that a pope can be a heretic. Therefore, you should never engage in conversation with a non-sedevacantist.

Or, perhaps you can say to a non-sedevacantist: "I can say whatever I like about the heresies of the non-Pope, but you are not allowed to say anything about the heresies of the so-called Pope, because you actually believe that he is the Pope."

Do you see how this could be a problem?

No, I don’t see it the way you do. Put yourself in my position. I look at these “popes” as usurpers, as evil people who have deliberately infiltrated the Church and are trying to destroy Her from within. I see them as evil people either willingly or unwittingly trying to bring souls to Hell.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care one iota what you say about them, I just believe that it’s extremely sinful to speak disparagingly about any *true* pope. If I believed that these usurpers were true popes, even if I disagreed with what they were doing, I would refrain from speaking ill of them. Again, it seems that Stubborn follows that vein of thinking.

I guess I see it like this: I don't see all of them as completely evil. From our perspective, they are trying to destroy the Church, because they are going against the true teachings of the Church, and teaching heresies and novelties, but some modernists believe that what they are doing is a good thing. That's how I view Francis. He thinks he's doing the right thing.

You say that it's extremely sinful to speak disparagingly about a true pope, but this doesn't take the particular heresy of Modernism into account. I don't think it's necessarily disparaging to point out the errors or heresies of the pope, or anyone in the hierarchy. It's simply a statement of fact. It needn't be done in a disparaging manner.

Looking at the photo of Benedict’s coffin I see no crucifix, nor even a cross. What is the emblem at the top of the coffin, does anyone know?

Seriously though, it's the shield from his coat of arms:

You want to know in what way “sedeism” profits me? Maybe because I have extremely profound respect for the Church and the Papacy. Your words prove that you think otherwise. I would never dare to speak about or treat the man you consider a pope the way you do, if I thought he was a true pope, EVER!

So what. Non-sedes also have extremely profound respect for the Church and the Papacy - plus we embrace and obey the teachings of the infallible Magisterium when it teaches no one is permitted to omit the name of the pope during the Mass under pain of being in schism.

 Which is to say you gave an answer that is altogether erroneous. Which means thus far you have only demonstrated that your sedeism serves no purpose, and does not profit you in any way. That's what your erroneous answer says about you and your sedeism because the reason you gave is not in any way, shape or form unique to sedeism.

And your quotes of me criticizing popes would make me be terrible indeed, but only if they were lies. Also, Siri was not a pope.