This is where we disagree. I can't go to sleep at night believing that God sent a false Vicar to His Church. Vicar=representative.

I have wrestled many times with Ladislaus's position of sededoubtism, but I only end up with a possibility vs certainty that God sent a false Vicar.

Don't believe that God would ever deceive...

Lets face in order to have a deception, there would have to be a line a false popes? Right?

Most, if not all the confusion, accusations, opinions etc. regarding the popes' status stems from a false idea of papal infallibility, then mix in a whole lot of papolatry - as AES exemplified with his "being subject to the pope is being subject to God". This is not Catholic, this is pure papolatry and is prevalent in varying degrees in probably all sedes.

God did not send a false Vicar, the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and he was elected, perhaps sent by God, certainly God permitted it. The faithless population got what they wanted, perhaps what they deserve. But either way, our salvation does not depend on his sanctity - recall in 1917 the Fatima Children saw souls falling into hell like snow flakes in a terrible blizzard - that was when a "true" pope was in the chair.     
 

Most, if not all the confusion, accusations, opinions etc. regarding the popes' status stems from a false idea of papal infallibility, then mix in a whole lot of papolatry - as AES exemplified with his "being subject to the pope is being subject to God". This is not Catholic, this is pure papolatry and is prevalent in varying degrees in probably all sedes.

I disagree.  I believe that your view of infallibility is way too loose.  But please answer my previous question.

I find it confusing.  How can I understand that the person who seems to be the pope does things that are the opposite of what a pope should do?  How can he be the pope?  How can he not be the pope?  

I don't see a simple answer to this.

He was elected as the successor of St. Peter same as the other popes for the last 1000 years. This is reality, it is an historical fact. We know there are only two ways that he can lose his office - die or retire.

He does things opposite of what popes should do, that does not mean he is not the pope, all it means to us is that none of us want to be him when he faces God at his particular judgement.

I do not understand, what similarities are there between sedevacantism, where popes are living, and a papal interregnum where the pope is dead awaiting election of the next pope?

That's not my question.  Stop trying to side-step it.  HOW is someone who dies in a normal papal interregnum saved?  How are they subject to the Pope if there is no pope?

I don't think that there's ever been a dedicated thread on this notion.  It usually rears its head on the SV vs. R&R threads.  I basically find legitimate arguments on BOTH sides, and I find many of the criticisms of each side against the other to be legitimate as well.  I had been a sedevacantist for a few years (about 25 years ago now) ... but backed away due to the problems I saw with SVism.  Yet R&R has its own problems.  So I ended up here.

I am intrigued by what you said because I see problems with both too.

They are saved by not being in mortal sin at the time of their death and their perseverance in the faith during an actual interregnum. If they were Catholic, then they were subject to the pope whilst the pope lived, because it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

It is not complicated.

So you're saying that at some point during there lives they were subject to a pope.  How about a baby who's born, is baptized, then dies ... all within a papal interregnum then?

I don't want to argue with you, Stubborn, because I am grateful for your past kindness, but I am not satisfied with your position.  You seem to think the answer is simple and obvious and only those who are stupid or bad-willed miss it.  I don't find it simple.  I find it so complicated that I get a headache when I try to think about it.

While he can't articulate his position, what he's trying to say is that if a man is elected Pope and universally accepted as such by the Church, then he's the pope.  There is something to be said for that argument.  Problem is that Stubborn can't lay it out logically so he gets people frustrated.  Some theologians have said that peaceful and universal acceptance of a man as pope by the Church is the infallible proof that a man is indeed the pope.  There's a poster here named Nishant who used to make a very strong case for the position.  What can be disputed is whether these men are indeed universally accepted by the actual Catholic Church.