In spring 2021, I discovered conclusive evidence that everyone from "BeneDict VIII" onward from 1012 forward was a simonious heretic AntiPope, everyone from "Paschal II" onward from 1100 forward was an idolatrous apostate AntiPope, everyone from Anselmo D'Aosta and Pierre Abélard onwards from circa 1100 to 1150 forward was a heretic pseudotheologian, everything from "Lateran 1" onward from 1122 forward was an invalid Conciliábulo, everyone from Bernard De ClairVaux and Gratian onwards from 1140 forward was a heretic pseudotheologian or pseudocanonist, everyone from Tommaso D'Aquino and Hostiensis D'Susa from 1250 forward was an apostate pseudotheologian or pseudocanonist, and, before that, it's a case by case basis. Anyone who wants to see this evidence can watch the docuмentaries.

Miguel PasaMano
migueljuanpasamano@gmail.com

Dear Acolyte of Ibranyi, you discovered nothing.  You were simply deluded by the sophistry of a false Christ.

Dear Acolyte of yourself David Landry. You know nothing of who discovered what. You would have taken a similar SedeVacantIst position if you were of good will but you chose to remain deluded by the pseudosophistries of antiChrists from the 2nd millennium even after you saw the evidence against them. You would have never known about the apostate AntiPopes "BeneDict XIIII", "Pius VII", and "Gregorius XVI" had Guillermo and I never said anything to you about it just before the planscamdemic started! You probably don't know the "heliocentrism" apostasy started under the apostate AntiPope "Clement XI" and escalated under the apostate AntiPope "Clement XII"! Do you even know what a red herring is? I will give you 3 examples: Leonard Feeney, the Dimonds' career as conmen, and Richard Ibranyi's delusions of being 1 of the 2 WitNesses against the Dogma that Prophets Saints Elias and Enoch are the 2 WitNesses. Newsflash: the mortal sins of detraction and calumny don't work with INFJ-Ts!

What can't you adhere to any longer? Catholicism? Sedevacantism? Your statement here isn't very clear.

depending on which cult of sedevacantism you adhere to.

The sedevacantist hardliners have split traditional Catholicism into a variety of factions among themselves. You can't even hold to sedeprivationism anymore according to some of them because "no valid Cardinals". It's chaos.

I must say, this IS one of the dangers of Sedevacantism. Once you get in your head that only holy popes without major scandal can be true popes, it can lead to this insane conclusion.

Then, rising up, the cardinal priest Peter testified that he himself had seen John XII celebrate Mass without taking communion. John, bishop of Narni, and John, a cardinal deacon, professed that they themselves saw that a deacon had been ordained in a horse stable, but were unsure of the time. Benedict, cardinal deacon, with other co-deacons and priests, said they knew that he had been paid for ordaining bishops, specifically that he had ordained a ten-year-old bishop in the city of Todi ... They testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse. They said that he had gone hunting publicly; that he had blinded his confessor Benedict, and thereafter Benedict had died; that he had killed John, cardinal subdeacon, after castrating him; and that he had set fires, girded on a sword, and put on a helmet and cuirass. All, clerics as well as laymen, declared that he had toasted to the devil with wine. They said when playing at dice, he invoked Jupiter, Venus and other demons. They even said he did not celebrate Matins at the canonical hours [] nor did he make the sign of the cross.

Divine providence, watching over the Church, miraculously preserved the deposit of faith, of which this young voluptuary was the guardian. This Pope’s life was a monstrous scandal, but his bullarium is faultless. We cannot sufficiently admire this prodigy. There is not a heretic or a schismatic who has not endeavored to legitimate his own conduct dogmatically: Photius tried to justify his pride, Luther his sensual passions, Calvin his cold cruelty. Neither Sergius III nor John XII nor Benedict IX nor Alexander VI, supreme pontiffs, definers of the faith, certain of being heard and obeyed by the whole Church, uttered, from the height of their apostolic pulpit, a single word that could be an approval of their disorders.
At times John XII even became the defender of the threatened social order, of offended canon law, and of the religious life exposed to danger.
(Mourret, A History of the Catholic Church, vol. 3, pp. 510-511; underlining added.)

I must say, this IS one of the dangers of Sedevacantism. Once you get in your head that only holy popes without major scandal can be true popes, it can lead to this insane conclusion.

There are different stages involved in the hypothetical repudiation of a papal claimant by the Church.

1) small group of individuals identify the problem
2) concerns come to be considered legitimate by a growing number of Catholics
3) universal rejection

I think that we are at phase 2 of this process in the case of the V2 papal claimants, whereas we never made it out of phase 1 for popes like Pius IX or Pius XII.