CathInfo.com

So, considering our own predicament, this will give rise to the obvious question for any Catholic - does the pope have to be Catholic? R&R keep lowering the bar. If Francis sacrifices a child on the altar of St. Peter's tomorrow while chanting "Hail Lucifier O' Lord of Light" The SSPX will still call him pope. There is nothing the conciliar Church has done, or could do to prove to them that it is NOT the Catholic Church.

You are phrasing the question incorrectly, as such you are forming your conclusion incorrectly. Yes, the pope has to be Catholic - if he does not want to burn in hell forever.

R&R is simply obeying the explicit directive given to us by Pope Paul IV in cuм ex. 

You may choose to think or feel that I am presuming to have authority - go ahead and argue it to the high heavens, shout it from the rooftops, hold it to your dying breath - makes no difference to me. Or, come after me by addressing my question(s) and arguments. If you won't do that - I refuse to speak to you anymore - Go ahead, you can have the last word. 

It's an over-reaction to think that I want to shout it from the rooftops, or to hold it to my dying breath. What an odd thing to say. 

You cloak your "questions" with an air of charity which you obviously do not really have. Your arrogance betrays you. 

I consider ^^ this to be a twisting/misreading of Papal Infallibility. Some competent theologians argue otherwise than you have about the pope being able to teach heresy for the Universal Church (I know you are aware these theologians exist, everyone who is a vocal member here is) You may feel the need to defend you interpretation of Papal Infallibility as the correct one for the 1000th time - go ahead - we have all heard it before - the impasse remains - the problem cannot be overcame with argumentation - better minds than ours have tried.

And other theologians agree with me, so there's that. But for me, I can read what is written in V1 and it is in perfect unity with all of the doctrines of the Church. OTOH, if what you say is actually true, then all trads are exactly wrong and need to convert to the NO.

I like this snip from a sermon given by Fr. Wathen....
"….All of you know very well, what God has revealed both in the Old Testament and Through Christ and His Apostles, is one doctrine. Not only does it mean one thing, but it is a single, as it were, a single cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams, there is a perfect unity. Therefore, anyone who in any way teaches contrary to any one of it’s doctrines, any part of this holy deposit, violates it’s holiness and of course the truth of God.  And if anyone comes forth and presents a doctrine contrary to it, he necessarily rouses the ire of Almighty God because he substitutes his puny human ideas and preferences to the holiness of the Divine Revelation."

So, we as I said, we will have to agree to disagree because we cannot agree, and we are at an impasse. That's OK with me, I don't need everyone to think like I do, I don't need to impose my understanding of things on others as dogma. I have made my arguments against the presumed validity of N.O. baptisms and trad priests who were baptized in the N.O. - that is my position. You have explained why you follow the SSPX in deciding these things - that is your choice, and you have the responsibility to make that choice for yourself during this time. I choose not to trust those judgments, unless someone can sway my mind with better arguments. I still consider you a Catholic (for what that is worth) and I am thankful for your contribution to this thread.

Well, baptisms are too easy to administer validly even when illicit, even for NO baptisms. And yes, ultimately it is my choice - which is why I ask the priest face to face as and consider that a major factor in making my decision. This hasn't been a concern of mine for decades, but for those who have this concern, I recommend that they need to do the same. If they still have doubts then do not go to that priest.

I consider sedes Catholic, albeit a kind of "special needs Catholic" because their faith seems to depend very much on presuming with some degree of certainty papal invalidity.