As I indicated above, you falsely appropriate Archbishop Lefebvre as a proponent of your position. While the Archbishop never took the step of publicly declaring the See vacant, deferring to the Church's final decision, he clearly agreed that the papacy is protected by the Holy Spirit from this degree of destruction. He speculated about how this could have happened, given that premise and opts not to make a definitive conclusion, although he repeatedly stated that it's quite possible that the See is vacant. You on the other hand reject the premise entirely and try to co-opt Archbishop Lefebvre as a dogmatic R&R.
It's no different than when the BoDers co-opt the Church Doctors who believed in BoD as if they were defenders of their position that infidels could be saved.
I am not the one falsely appropriating Archbishop Lefebvre as a proponent of my position,perhaps if you would simply click on the link you would have saw that maybe? My position is his, and the Church's, always has been and always will be. You conveniently missed the part where I based "my position" on V1's dogmatic teaching I guess.
You talk a great talk for a sede, but if you ever try to quote actual Church teachings instead of ad libbing from theologians of the last few centuries to support your opinions, you will find only Church teachings that disagree with everything you say regarding sedeism.
Topic: Feb 2nd 2022, The Day RnR Admit Antipope Francis is Not in the Church? (Read 15495 times)