I counsel you, Quo, to read what Savonarola wrote: “The Church is filled with abominations, from the crown of her head to the soles of her feet, yet not only do you neglect to cure her of her ailments, but instead you pay homage to the very source of the evils which pollute her. Wherefore, the Lord is greatly angered and has for long left the Church without a shepherd. I now herby testify, in the word of the Lord, that Alexander is no pope, nor can he be regarded as one. I declare that he is not a Christian, and does not believe in the existence of God, and thus far exceeds the limits of infidelity.” Savonarola was burnt at the stake as a heretic himself. Pope Alexander VI was truly the Pope.
Of course he wasn't a heretic. And the way we prove that infallibly was that Pope Alexander VI had UA. If not, and without UA, almost any Pope in history can become "doubtful" when a few modern sede and sede-lite benevacantists deny his Papacy. We have a poster here, God bless and enlighten him, who recently denied some Pope from several centuries ago. Others reacted furiously to it, and it was certainly an objective error, but that's where denying the doctrine of UA necessarily leads: to heresy and apostasy from Jesus Christ and His Church. Come back from the brink, for the love of God and your Souls. Pray more Rosaries every day to learn and be enlightened about the Truth.
As for your other quotes, they are only excusing the culpability for schism, not the objective fact of schism itself. In the same way, an Orthodox Christian in good faith who sincerely believes the Holy Roman Church supposedly lapsed into heresy, may still be excused from subjective mortal sin if he was born in that error and could not reasonably know better. But, once he can, he should. And the same applies to you. And just like it would be unacceptable for Catholics who know better to lapse into Orthodoxy, so likewise to lapse into sedevacantism. The fact of Universal Acceptance, as +Billot teaches incontrovertibly resolves all doubt (so all doubters of good will must cease to doubt, just like all doubters ceased after the Great Western Schism ended and a single Pope received UA) and infallibly proves the existence of all the required conditions. In other words, it proves the Pope is not and never was a heretic and thus is True Pope.
May God bless and enlighten you.
Man... I don't know anything about this Savonarola bloke... but tough times alright. I think it was a mistake to presume to speak on behalf of Our Lord like that, but I don't think he deserved that treatment either.
Imagine if Bergoglio had that power today... Pachamama idolatry or into the flames.
You can name me btw, I don't mind... I also appreciate the charity with which you handled it. It was Boniface VIII who usurped St Pope Celestine V and I'm very sure about that... fingers crossed I don't end up like Savonarola lol.
I'm assuming by UA you mean Universal Acceptance? (I got lost earlier as I didn't know what some of your abbreviations stood for).
I don't know much at all about Pope Alexander VI so I'm not saying one way or the other on him, but this Universal Acceptance thing is a total non-starter for me and goes nowhere... the only thing that can validate or invalidate a Pope is whether they were validly elected by the college of cardinals or not... then good or bad that's that and we just have to leave it to Our Lord IMO.
Bergoglio could be the best and do everything I ever wanted and it would all mean nothing... because we already had a Pope who was clearly usurped. Pope Benedict XVI could be even worse and it wouldn't matter in terms of the Papacy, all I need to know is that Pope Benedict XVI was the valid successor to St Peter and they therefore had no right to depose and usurp him.
Universal Acceptance doesn't prove anything, the very concept is completely crazy... the truth is not determined by a majority, the Pope is the Pope even if he is accepted by nobody and a usurper is a usurper even if he is accepted by everybody. If a majority accepted someone else as Pope over St Peter for example, then it would mean nothing because Jesus gave it to St Peter and St Peter's valid successors. All I need to know is if they validly succeeded their predecessor and then it's case closed.
Where I take exception to the Vatican 2 Sede position, is that there is simply no way to declare all those Popes invalidly elected, because for starters there is simply no other alternative and they cannot lose the Papacy... As it either comes with Divine Protection/Assistance or it does not... the very concept of 'losing' the Papacy due to heresy means that the gates of hell have prevailed.
Who knows, maybe they used a body double and usurped Pope Paul VI... anything is possible, Stalin had himself a body double and much of that is still classified, but even then his successor can't also be invalid and the chain can't be completely broken forever.
Hence Pope Benedict XVI was our valid successor to St Peter whether we like it or not, nobody therefore had the right to depose and usurp him, therefore Bergoglio was invalidly elected... Bergoglio's heresies merely prompted me to look into it.
God Bless