Do you understand the reason a person must reject an antipope?  A person must do this in order to remain in Catholic unity, since being subject to an antipope and recognizing their teachings as being Catholic and authoritative, while merely ignorant, and not invincibly ignorant that the man is an antipope (as in the case of St. Vincent Ferrer, who is exonerated by common sense and the teachings of Pope Pius IX in Singulari Quadem, or Quadam as it's also been spelled) is a schismatic action.

Therefore if Pope Pius IX, for example, had been subject to an antipope, barring invincible ignorance, then he would have been a schismatic and an antipope himself.  Trace that ripple effect all the way back to Boniface VIII and you would have nearly seven hundred and fifteen years of antipapacy, and you would have to reject the following six accepted Ecuмenical Councils as non-Catholic robber Councils.

The Council of Vienne (1311-1312 A.D.)
The Council of Constance (1414-1418 A.D.)
The Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431-1445 A.D.)
The Lateran Council V (1512-1517 A.D.)
The Council of Trent (1545-1563 A.D.)
The Vatican Council (1869 A.D.)

Please answer this question:

If sixty four popes, from Blessed Benedict XI (1303-1304) to Pius X (1903-1914), accepted Boniface VIII as a valid Pontiff, how are you not schismatic for rejecting him, or how could you logically still accept these men as popes?

Hint: the only answer that is not schismatic is:

I was wrong

Just because Benedict XV through Benedict XVI are all anti-popes doesn't give you the right to depose popes throughout history based on your own crackpot concoctions and homebrew "heresies". And you say I'm the troll. Or shill or whatever.

Imo Pius XI and XII are true Popes.

If Benedict XV was an anti-pope, and Pius XI & XII never abjured, then how are they true popes? Its not like bishops turn apostate overnight. I'm going out on a limb and speculating that Satan implemented Benedict XV as anti-pope to sow the seeds of Vatican II in the Church, and then allowed Pius XI and Pius XII to reign in order for a modernist under-current to grow strong, all the while the Church looked perfectly healthy because Pius XI and XII were seemingly orthodox popes in order to deceive the world. By the anti-papacy of John XXIII, the poisonous fruit of Vatican II was more than ready to bloom. Again, just speculation, just thinking out loud here.

 Little by little, it leads to the total rejection of the Catholic Church.

Little by little, it leads to the total rejection of the Catholic Church.

To what exactly are you referring, Spouse?

First reject v2 popes, then some pre-v2 pope, then some medieval ones. What will it lead to?
If you keep on, you will end in rejecting nearly all of them.

In fact, little by little, the acceptance of these men is what has led to most people in the world losing the true Faith.

Quote from: DeMaistre

Just because Benedict XV through Benedict XVI are all anti-popes doesn't give you the right to depose popes throughout history based on your own crackpot concoctions and homebrew "heresies". And you say I'm the troll. Or shill or whatever.

This line of confusion has been present here b4. The only 'popes deposed throughout history' are Boniface, Urban VI( I believe he was validly elected but lost his office by his actions. Even if one does not preach heresy, actual actions that show one to be a heretic despite words to the contrary is the same thing) and Ben 15.

I am hardly the first person to speculate on whether these clowns are anti-popes-- especially Boniface. How did you vote in the Templar s poll?

Sorry, I meant "declare to be an anti-pope".

I didn't vote. Quite frankly, I'm undeducated in that matter, so I wasn't comfortable voting for something that I did not know much about.