On the subject of sedevacantes, I do not bother to read what XavierSem, Meg, Sean Johnson and others like them say, I just scroll down the comments and just read Ladislaus, or read how Laslaus responds. It's a big time saver. If I were proven wrong as much as those people are, I would learn a lot. They have learned nothing.

Keep up the good work Ladislaus, don't ever think your work is fruitless because of those wood heads, we people who learn something new every day are all learning a ton.

You accuse me of worshiping Lefebvre? 

Yes, I do believe that +ABL had more authority than you have, or will EVER have.

Yeti, to put Matthew's point into practice, related to your last 2 posts...
.
The vast majority of sedes believe that point #2, where a V2 pope would convert, is an impossibility because they believe the moment he proclaims heresy that he has lost his office because a heretic is no longer a catholic, being outside the church.  This would mean that he could not “convert” and regain his office, as he would have to be re-elected again.  So #2 is an impossibility, per the logic of 99% of sedes.
.
Point #1 is of Divine intervention and would only seem to be a solution if the other points not be possible.  So this can’t be relied upon being that point #3 is still possible.  
.
You say (in the quoted part above) that sedes believe they “don’t have the power” to elect a new pope?  Why not?
.
99% of sedes on this board (which corresponds to the the major arguments that I’ve run across in real life too) say that ALL the Cardinals in Rome are heretics.  So they have lost their offices and are no longer catholic nor able to elect a pope.  This goes also for the Roman clergy, since they also follow V2 and the new mass and are heretics.  Thus, all that’s left are the “whole church” to elect a new pope.  
.
So who makes up the “whole church” remnant?  It’s either sedes or the sspx of Tradition.  Well, the sspx has accepted V2, generally speaking, and they aren’t really Trads anymore.  Same thing for all indulters.  Who’s left but the Resistance and the sedes.  The Resistance are heretics (at least materially, according to sede logic) because they accept a heretic pope, so the inly group left in the “whole church” who is 100% orthodox is the sede movement.  This is point #3.   So why haven’t sedes elected a pope? Per point 3, they DO have the power.

LT, you may just want to watch out for whenever Lad quotes Fr. Fenton's wrong teachings, like this one he likes to quote from Fr. Fenton: "God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense..."

What Fr. Fenton's idea does, under the pretext of a more profound understanding of course, is it abandons the meaning of the sacred dogma of papal infallibility "which has once been declared by Holy Mother the Church".

So you may just want to beware of that. Hard to tell how many people over the last +60 years believed Fr. Fenton's teaching and on that account, went the way of the NO. The great Lad himself has in the past said that if he could be convinced that the pope was the pope, that he'd also go the way of the NO. If that's what a firm belief in that idea can do to him, then it can do it to you too, so just beware my friend.  

Stubborn, you just keep failing when it comes to basic logic, which is what causes us to be so terribly frustrated with you.  Just because Vatican I defined two different modes in which the Church's infallibility can be exercised, these definitions do not positively rule out other ways in which the Holy Ghost guides the Church and preserves her from error.  So, for instance, theologians nearly-unanimously hold that the Church's Universal Discipline is infallible ... as well as canonization.

... his belief that popes have an additional, different infallibility, an infallibility that is distinct from the dogma - which is at least error, if not outright heresy for any priest to even say.