Quote from: TKGS

I have often wondered what line the Conciliar sect would have to cross before the eyes of the "Conservative" Catholic would be open that the papal claimant was not Catholic and therefore not the pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

If a man shows the signs of being a sodmite, I don't need legal proof to take action and protect my children. In the same light, anyone who thinks they need to become a sedevacantes if they believe that the Vat II popes are POISON and DANGEROUS,  is a fool.

When the shepherd changes into a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. Normally, without doubt, doctrine descends from the bishops to the faithful, and those who are subjects, in the order of the faith, are not to judge their superiors. But in the treasure of revelation there are some essential points which every Christian, by the very fact of his title as Christian, is bound to know and defend (The Liturgical Year, Vol. IV, Dom Guéranger; Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria).

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: soulguard

But in court does a father get custody of the children if he is abusive?

Its a stupid argument. The whole point of sede vacante is that the claimant doesn't meet one of the prerequisites to claim the papacy.  A proper analogy would be "just because your father didn't have sɛҳuąƖ relations with your mother doesn't mean he's not your father."  That's exactly the point of contention, whether or not the prequisites for the role are satisfied. The bad father analogy doesn't take that into account. It assumes what its trying to prove.

Well maybe the father analogy doesn't work for sedepleinists either.
He is like a father who has been absent whom the mother bars from seeing the children. Sedeprivationism then? SSPX are right? I don't think so.
It should take more than a non-Catholic claimant to the papacy and heretical cardinals to paralyse the church. Do not forget, the church is paralysed in a death spiral precisely because groups like the SSPX still think he is their legitimate superior whom they must obey. It is not an abstract theological argument that decides this. His papacy is clearly an offence to divine law.
He fell out of the church and has no right to lead her, especially not when he has made it clear that he wants to kill her. The papacy is not like an earthly marriage, it is more like a business contract. He got fired by his boss ( GOD), but refuses to leave the premises.