Ma'am, it's good to see that you seem to be opting out of the masochism.

It's a terrible injustice you do her by egging her on.

What exactly is it that she's not buying or never has therefore never will? That she refuses to exchange her opinion for the truth?

The dogma decreed by Pope Boniface VIII states: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Do you suppose the Holy Ghost forgot to add at the end: "...unless you don't believe he is the pope"?  Or do you believe that God foresaw today's crisis and specifically worded it just as He did anyway on purpose, or perhaps better said, not without purpose?  Because it is dogma it is timeless and always a requirement, it may as well have been decreed in 1920, or 1960, or 2000 as 1302. If you believe the latter, then you understand that God knew of today's crisis when He decreed the dogma yet said what He said anyway.

It is through faith that we believe that God saw today's crisis clearer than we who live it see it, and still said that in order to get to heaven, we are to be the popes' subjects no matter what our opinion in the matter is -  not make our own decision in the matter, decide his status, decide he's not the pope, then claim the dogma doesn't apply under because the popes' are heretics. That idea makes the whole idea of dogma a colossal farce and demonstrates zero faith in God in His decree.  

The dogma says we must be subject to the pope, it does not say we are to blindly submit to the pope, blindly follow his commands even if that meant that by obeying the pope, we offend God. That would be very stupid of God if He were to make or even intend such a decree - no? - particularly knowing that He foresaw this crisis and excluded our opinion in the matter on purpose.    

It's a terrible injustice you do her by egging her on.

Noting hopeful indications that she's not playing any more, i.e. "egging her..." off = "egging her on".

The mad flailings of a mind unhinged by lying and heresy.

Classic "stubborn".

"Black is white"
"Day is night"
"Left is right"

"Wrong is right" i.e. "Good is evil..."

Woe..

"Terrible injustice" = Stubborn as "Lord and Savior"

Woe...

It's a terrible injustice you do her by egging her on.

What exactly is it that she's not buying or never has therefore never will? That she refuses to exchange her opinion for the truth? 

Let 's be clear here Stubborn.  You and I were discussing Church teaching that backed the idea that a true pope could be the head of two churches..one true and one false.  You never provided proof that your theory is true. Therefore you have NO business telling me that I should exchange my opinion for "the (your) truth".  Your "truth" is just your opinion.  Until you can provide clear Catholic teaching that a true pope can head Christ;s church and a false church at the same time, that is all it will ever be.
I happen to believe that Matthew 16:18 provides proof of my opinion, but you don't see me telling you that you must exchange your opinion for my truth do you?
Apparently, even though it has been a long time, I was crazy to get into another debate with you.
Good day.  

Let 's be clear here Stubborn.  You and I were discussing Church teaching that backed the idea that a true pope could be the head of two churches..one true and one false.  You never provided proof that your theory is true. Therefore you have NO business telling me that I should exchange my opinion for "the (your) truth".  Your "truth" is just your opinion.  Until you can provide clear Catholic teaching that a true pope can head Christ;s church and a false church at the same time, that is all it will ever be.
I happen to believe that Matthew 16:18 provides proof of my opinion, but you don't see me telling you that you must exchange your opinion for my truth do you?
Apparently, even though it has been a long time, I was crazy to get into another debate with you.
Good day.  

Your belief that Matthew 16:18 is conditional, that is, dependent upon the sanctity of the pope, IS your opinion. How you arrived at that opinion that His words include or imply any conditions at all and where you got that opinion from, only you know, but rest assured, it is only your opinion, even if shared with others for the simple reason that it says what it says.

.
I want to point out the evil deception on the part of Stubborn.  It seems to appear by Stubborn, in his presentation of a partial rendering of  “cuм ex Apostolatus Officio”, he gives the impression that Pope Paul IV, is saying that if the Pope is contradicted, it must be more counteracted.  Stubborn, is that what you are implying?  Please clarify?  If this was not what you meant, then at the very least, you are not counteracting, in fact, you are supporting these antipopes, as popes!

It's not that I am implying it, that's the pope's instructions to us, telling us the extent of action we are to take in this crisis. That's it and that's all of it.

You are not distinguishing between the SPIRITUAL excommunication (which is immediate) and the loss of the TEMPORAL office of the pope (which requires canon law procedures).  The SPIRITUAL punishment of excommunication is IMMEDIATE; the TEMPORAL punishment of removal from office, IS NOT.    

Heresy is first in the internal forum of the person's mind, whereby they reject truth.  No one can judge that except God.  This is why canon law says that a person who rejects the truth is judged immediately (i.e. ipso facto) by their own actions.  This is a SPIRITUAL penalty.  Excommunication is a SPIRITUAL penalty until it is TEMPORALLY ratified by the Church.  When one is SUSPECTED of heresy then they are 1) questioned, tried, interrogated, and then if the errors are still held, they are 2) removed from their office.  The process of interrogation and removal from office is part of canon law and until that happens, the person still holds office.

Possession doesn't mean ownership!

One could say the same as, say, a Protestant; does this include having the mind and "diet" of a child as well? I ask because, first off, if you were addressing me as a child earlier, then you need to be turned over a knee and strapped by your parent or guardian.

Wait, "Fanny"...

Well that adds up.