Sede-vacantism word for word denies the dogma that there will be Perpetual Successors to St. Peter until the end of time; that is incompatible with an indefinite interregnum.

Pfft.  So does any even-5-minute interregnum if one were to distort and misinterpret this quote the way you do.

You're rather desperate to justify your schismatic position, aren't you?

You've been thoroughly refuted by the sedevacantists on this point ... so move along to something else already, would you?

Seriously, what is their lame excuse? Why haven't +Dolan, +Sanborn, +Pivarunas, and all the other Sede bishops elected a pope yet? They must have some lame excuse.

I don't think that anyone has directly answered the above question, as of yet.  

Evidently, the above sedevacantists don't believe that there needs to be a Pope of the Catholic Church. Or, if there is a Modernist Pope, than he's not really a proper Pope, so it's better to not have a Pope at all. Therefore, there is no Pope.

I agree too that the sedes should elect their Pope, and stop bothering everyone else in trying to force sedeism on all of the trad Catholics (or the Resistance Catholics, rather. I think they've given up on everyone else).

Maybe if they have their own Pope, they'll leave the Resistance trads alone. Or, maybe not. On second thought, if the sedes elected a Pope, they might insist that all trads accept their Pope, or this means that they are not really Catholic, and may be condemned. I can see that as a potential problem with the sedes electing their own Pope. They will become even more annoying, if they have their own Pope.

But then again, they might not be able to come to a consensus. After all, sedeism is highly individualistic. How could they ever agree on who it is that would be Pope? A sede conclave could potentially go on forever, with endless debates and opinions about who should be elected Pope.

Evidently, the above sedevacantists don't believe that there needs to be a Pope of the Catholic Church.

There certainly need not be a non-Catholic heretic pope.  R&R is content to have a warm body in the chair and pay no attention to the fact that their position is tantamount to proclaiming a defection of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline.

Here's a refreshingly-honest examination of the Bergoglio "formal heresy" issue ... by someone who recently came around to a sedevacantist view --
http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2018/03/okay-ill-say-it-i-do-not-anymore.html

 If Bergoglio is a formal heretic, it is not because he was implicitly judged to be so by the authors of the dubia or the other letters. Rather, it is at least partly because he was given every chance to clarify or renounce his views - after being reminded of their nature - and chose not to do so, while elsewhere confirming that these were in fact views he solidly held. Such can be part of the process where mere material heresy becomes known as formal.

Better to have a warm body saving a spot in the chair of Peter than to have no spot saved for many decades.

Yet ... better to have an empty chair with no warm body in it than to have a corrupted Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church.  Rocks-Paper-Scissors.

We acknowledge the Pope, but we don't follow him in his errors Magisterium.

Fixed it for you above there.  Basically, you pay him lip service but then ignore his teaching.  That is not Catholic.  Pretty simple

Fixed it for you above there.  Basically, you pay him lip service but then ignore his teaching.  That is not Catholic.  Pretty simple

Matthew, the forum owner, recently stated that we aren't supposed to do what you did above - we aren't supposed to say to another forum member, in response to a post...""Fixed it for you above there." Did you see that post of Matthew's? I could report your post.

I take the same stance as Archbishop Lefebvre, which I keep pointing out to you, and you keep ignoring. I assume that you believe that Archbishop Lefebvre's view was not Catholic either.  

I take the same stance as Archbishop Lefebvre, ...

No, you really don't, Meg.  You don't understand the position of +Lefebvre.  Archbishop Lefebvre considered the status of the Vatican II popes to be doubtful, but resolved the doubt in their favor based on a type of "benefit of the doubt" position and various prudential considerations.  EVERYBODY claims to be the authentic follower of +Lefebvre.  I for one do not worship him ... just respect and admire him.  If I happen to come to the same conclusion as +Lefebvre on some issue, then that's great.  But I don't feel any need to constantly pretend that I am an authentic disciple of +Lefebvre.  That card is usually played when someone is losing an argument ... the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

So, for instance, I have absolutely no hesitation in disagreeing with +Lefebvre's statement regarding the EENS dogma.