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 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. 

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.

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.

Can you clarify?

"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".

I could spin the same back at you. Is not your faith too some degree dependent on acknowledging that Francis is pope? I mean would you die a martyr's death to uphold that he is?

To me, they all the "cardinals" manifested their heresy when they signed the docuмents of VII. They had already lost their offices by internally consenting to the heresies within and they manifested it externally by signing the docuмents. Many of them may not have even been cardinals for the following reason(s):

John XXIII may not have even been canonically elected, too much suspicion around him (suspect of Modernism file at the Holy Office) he was an unworthy candidate (cuм ex) and/or there are other theories like the whole Siri thing, it will probably all come out in the end. Him taking the name of an anti-pope should have been a clue.

So, "getting around this" is not that hard for me. God made this world from nothing, He took on mortal flesh, walked on water, rose from the dead and gives Himself to us in what looks like bread. By the grace of God, I believe much more difficult things then what happened before/during V2, I may not know exactly what happened, but then I don't have to. The pope cannot teach condemned heresy from his magisterium. That I have to believe.

That my friend, is what we call a mystery

Yes, the Church's enemies do occupy the Church as +Tissier said.  Fr. Wathen agrees, in his book he said: "...the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic  Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column..."

Google definition of a Fifth Column: A fifth column is a group of people who undermine a larger group or nation from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or another nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine.

That is what you think. But, it is not how SVs see it = difference of opinion/perception and gets us nowhere.

But in the case with public heresy - the Sacrament of Penance alone will NOT remedy a heretic's situation. He must also make a public (two witnesses) abjuration of his heresy in front of his superior (bishop), then receive absolution in order to enter back into the Church. 

Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all

penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.