CathInfo.com

It was a temporal situation when it came to the Popes of the Western Schism.  They were all teaching Catholicism.  This time around they are changing Truth.  So you really can't compare apples and oranges.

Gray, overall, your answers were nonsense.  You didn't really respond to anything I said, except for the above.

Your above comment is not accurate, and also, there were multiple times throughout history (4-5x at least) where there were competing popes.  No, there were popes vs anti-popes.  No, they were not all orthodox.  

Besides, the orthodoxy issue isn't even the main issue.  If pope B wasn't the true pope, but claimed to be, even if he were "teaching catholicism" he's still committing grave sins against the Faith and is illict.  The issues in the past were of licitness (who was the valid pope).  The issues of today are licitness AND heresy.

If something is illicit, that is also immoral.  If the 'una cuм' didn't apply then, it doesn't apply now.  Illicit/immoral things can send people to hell.  Adding in the additional issue of heresy doesn't change anything.  The 'una cuм' test is bogus.  Sedevacantism needs to DROP IT IMMEDIATELY.

I am not sure your posts make any more sense than mine.

Stop talking in generalities and give at least one situation like you describe from history that is not the Western Scism. 

There were 37 anti-popes in church history.  Which means there were 37 times (including the western schism) where there was a true pope and then 1-2 false popes.  The Church has NEVER declared that those who prayed 'una cuм' with an anti-pope were wrong.  It's only AFTER the "anti pope" was declared anti-pope, that there would be a sin.  And not because 'una cuм' was used during mass, but because catholics who prayed with a KNOWN anti-pope were committing schism.  But during the crisis...like now...there's no sin.

Again, St Vincent Ferrer (who worked numerous miracles and is the last saint to have raised a person from the dead) got it wrong.  He was supportive of an anti-pope and he's still a saint.

Conclusion -- The controversy today over 'una cuм' is manufactured.  It's not a moral issue.  No one is going to hell because they say the V2 pope's names at mass.  BECAUSE THE CHURCH HAS YET TO DECLARE THEM ANTI-POPES.  AND PRAYING FOR THEM IS NOT AN ACT OF SCHISM, SINCE THEY ARE POPES IN THE SENSE THAT THEY HOLD THE OFFICE, WHICH IS WHAT THE PRAYER IS PRAYING FOR.

The Western Schism doesn't help your case.  St Vincent's story proves you wrong.  I hold out no hope that you'll change or admit anything because you rarely do.

Please explain how the Great Schism and St Vincent proves that the current avoidance of 'una cuм' masses by Sedes makes sense.  I'm all ears.

You have gone down your own rabbit hole.  You have lost me.

Let me try to say my point again.
Each man has to decide who they will follow.  Then they need to stick to it.  For example we all know where Tom stands and he is sure about it.  My husband has decided we will not go to an una cuм mass, so we don't.  Justinian I believe follows her husband to an SSPX.   That is how it should be.  We all have are own perspective of the crisis.  The priests should serve the sacraments to Catholics regardless of what opinion they hold.  They need to show more charity not less.  Then at some point a True Pope will sit in the Chair of St. Peter and tell us what has happened over the last 60+ years.

For me the una cuм issue is more about saying who has the authority.  I don't believe Pope Leo currently has it, so I do not attend Masses with his name. (we don't have any authority to say everone has to do this) As for when this happened with St. Vincent he believed the Mass he was attending had the Pope's name of the Pope he believed had authority.  Maybe that cleared things up, maybe it made it more muddy.