I see you are attempting to be dogmatic again. Neither of these two dogmas refute sedevacantism, however.  In fact, this one specifically refutes you, since you don't submit yourself to the decrees of the Second Vatican Council as commanded by your "pope".

"[...and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.] I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils [and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, and by the ecuмenical Council of the Vatican, particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching. I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church hath condemned, rejected, and anathematized.]" (Tridentine Creed-Pope Pius IV)

I added parts you conveniently left out from the Creed. Note it says "true" obedience, not "blind" obedience. If you cannot discern what the difference, then you need to look it up and study it till you fully understand and comprehend what "true" obedience vs "blind" obedience is. Sedes are notorious for claiming the the error that the Church demands "blind" obedience to the pope when She demands "true" obedience. Were She to demand "blind" obedience, we would then be bound to blindly submit to the pope.

Note we are to PARTICULARLY profess the primacy of the pope - and you? What do you do? You profess he's not even pope, in that way you figure you've got the whole issue covered. Very sad.

The Creed specifically calls for us to profess and believe everything in it, not submit to anything. I think if you will spend time to learn the difference between profess and believe the true faith, and blind submission to the pope and his teachings, you will have lose what little reason you have for your sedevacantism.  

Notice, it's not just definitions and canons that we must submit to.

There is nothing in the Creed demanding we submit or blindly submit to the pope or his new teachings no matter how often you make that false claim. To even suggest such a thing is not even Catholic. Do you realize that?

 

Notice the bolded and underlined Stubborn. Sedes agree that the blessed Peter "SHOULD" have perpetual successors.  That doesn't mean that blessed Peter 'WILL" have perpetual successors. Sedes also agree that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter.

The lengths sedes will go to in order to save their worthless opinion is truly amazing. The mind twisting word play you sedes practice is phenomenal because yes, it most certainly does mean that per Divine Law, St. Peter should have perpetual successors because Our Lord said so, if it were as you are wont to interpret, then the sedes must agree that blessed Peter SHOULDN'T have perpetual successors because Our Lord did not say "would" have, He said "should" have perpetual successors. Your silly interpretation makes Our Lord question His own Law as it's being decreed, which wholly absurd as it is, does accurately agree with the sede thinking.

Unfortunately, for you, however, the Concilar Popes are NOT to be considered Roman Pontiffs due to their public heresy.

This is nothing more than your worthless opinion, which you elevate above defined dogma is all this is. Do you realize that?  

 

I would like him to say something besides, "you can't say the Pope is not the Pope or you will anathematize yourself", followed by "stop being dogmatic", which is a "no argument" followed by hypocrisy.

I know, I know, you would like the dogma to be irrelevant, while your opinion is the only thing that is relevant. Thankfully it doesn't work that way.

Heretics are not Catholics that is a dogma not an opinion.

It is not my opinion that Francis is a heretic. Francis chooses to be one!

You keep yourself aligned with Novus Ordo because of the influence of a priest that erred.

I was born and raised a trad and can count on a few fingers the number of times I went to a NO, and only made it to the end once in my life (NO funeral about 20 years ago) - I am not the one tainted with the effects of time spent exposed to the NO, but it is quite obvious the sedes here exhibit common NO traits in their sedeism.

You cannot say the pope is not the pope, that is dogma, that is Catholic, to deny the dogma in favor of your own opinion is one of the traits of NOism.

Whatever else he is, he is the pope - that is dogma. If you have any faith whatsoever in the dogma, you will be unable to be sedevacantist.

This is his biggest straw man argument. "You cannot say the pope is not the pope". The sede position does not claim the Pope is not the Pope.

So in a way, he's correct, it would not be Catholic to do this. The problem is that the sedevacante position does not say this. In this way any person not knowledgeable in the positions with a little Catholic knowledge, reading his posts, would say that this would be an incorrect position.

Stubborn has no business arguing against Sedevacantism because he either doesn't actually know the position or intentionally lies in order to deceive those looking for Truth.

Your OPINION is that the one who occupies the Chair, known throughout the entire world for the last 2000 years as "the pope", is not the pope. Your opinion is irrelevant, the dogma is relevant. Your opinion in the matter is at least as worthless as my opinion in the matter, one of the differences between us is I accept that as fact, you reject that as fact.

.
After 22 pages what has been accomplished so far?
.

I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sɛҳuąƖ morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!

.
Curiously, Lepanto -- er, lepantoh, has made just this one post, starting this thread, and has not returned for 3 weeks. 
.
It appears the overt rancor and manifest discontent demonstrated by the sede members here convinced lepantoh he should avoid that crowd. If misery loves company, those who prefer peace and prayer find other digs. 
.
He is not looking for anger, misery, contentiousness, argument, insults, derision and ad hominems.
.
He's looking for environs resembling what his Catholic ancestors experienced and now he sees that's not to be found in sedevacantism.
.
You can hardly blame lepantoh for not coming back to this thread.
.

.
The number one priority for sedes is their sedevacantism.
.
Everything they say, do and believe must conform to their Greatest Commandment -- the Pope is not the Pope.
.
Are they willing to die defending their great principle? Who will be the first Sedevacantist Martyr?
.

I know you are right Neil, I only keep posting the truth for lurking fence sitters who are confused yet seek the truth. You'd think after repeatedly seeing the sedes literally and vehemently reject dogma as heresy that would alleviate some of the confusion for the fence sitters, but oh well, it goes on.

Fr. Wathen nailed it when he sedevacantism should be recognized more as a syndrome than a theological thesis. He said the sedes are people who cannot think straight because they are anemic spirits. This gets proven here nearly every time one of the sede's post. It truly is their greatest commandment.  

What does this mean to you. Notice I did not post #1 of this bull, only #6. Don't appeal to #1 as it is irrelevant. I want you to address #6.
Pay special attention to the last part where it say "without need for any further declaration". I would like to know what you think this part of the Bull (#6) means. I don't care at all right now, about anything else you may have to add, but what you think this means and whether you need to accept it.

# 1 is relevant only in the fact that it is in #1 that the pope directly addresses us the lay people, and instructs us what we are to do about an heretical pope, other than that, it is irrelevant to your agenda.

Beyond that, #6 is addressed strictly to: "Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors." IOW, it was and is irrelevant to those who at that time were none of the above.

This is absolutely correct, as I've pointed out before on this particular thread.  His argument regarding this dogma is completely irrelevant.  He uses it to his own demise, however, as we've already pointed out that he subjects himself, knowingly and willingly, to a heretic.
 
Ah yes, the fifth column...  

Truly astonishing that he believes a heretic is the principle and center of the unity of the Church.  

You are as bad a willed sede as I've seen here. I explained it to you in words little Catholic children understand, do you know where your church is yet? Have you found it yet?