There was Montini with the Ephod, not less bad.

As far as I know, there were a few Catholics, who were in high alert since Roncalli's Pacem in terris (1963), and who warned others before the robber council was over in 1965.

I have heard that there was a priest who called sede vacante during Roncalli's "reign".  But I cannot find a reference for it.  Yes, Montini with the Ephod and the Deuce and the Bhudda in Assisi.  I guess the reason everyone is on Frank's case is that he is pro-abortion and pro-pervert as well.  But Montini was a pervert (according to Randy Engel's research) and everyone knows the Deuce protected Marcial Maciel.  So I don't know.  Frank sure knows how to push everyone's buttons.

What/who is "the Deuce"?

Ok "protected Maciel"? But why "Deuce"?

John Paul Deuce

Ok. Thank you. My dictionary said "Einstand" (both players same score), but it is more general: "two".

This charming anecdote illustrates the havoc that can be wreaked upon a defenseless world when tennis players or fans are given access to senior editorial positions at publishers of dictionaries and other reference books. Game, set, match indeed.

Ich zittre, ich bebe!

One would have to be completely detached from reality to claim that there is a dogma saying that all who don't hold to the sedevacantist position are condemned. There simply is none.

I don't know what to think about you, presenting your three alternatives DS, MS, UDS. Are you able to quote a single sedevacantist who says what your DS says?

Struthio, what you need to know is that the term dogmatic sedevacantist means whatever a non-sedevacantist (typically a rabid anti-sede, but not necessarily) wishes it to mean; typically it's whatever they judge to be "going too far".  Hope that helps!

False.  We clearly defined those terms earlier in this thread.

Examples of dogmatic sedevacantists:  Dimond brothers, Bishop Sanborn
Examples of moderate sedevacantists (the opinionists, as Bishop Sanborn calls them):  SSPV

So, for instance, the Dimonds claim that anyone who believes that Bergoglio is the pope is by that very fact a heretic.  No allowance made for disagreements regarding the Cajetan vs. Bellarmine positions, or more of a sedeprivationist angle.  Bishop Sanborn is a bit more moderate, but still a dogmatic sedevacantist, since he would hold that people could be excused from formal heresy due to confusion, etc.  But he still holds that the conclusion that the See is vacant is dogmatically certain.

Again, merely your opinion.  

False.  We clearly defined those terms earlier in this thread.

Examples of dogmatic sedevacantists:  Dimond brothers, Bishop Sanborn
Examples of moderate sedevacantists (the opinionists, as Bishop Sanborn calls them):  SSPV

So, for instance, the Dimonds claim that anyone who believes that Bergoglio is the pope is by that very fact a heretic.  No allowance made for disagreements regarding the Cajetan vs. Bellarmine positions, or more of a sedeprivationist angle.  Bishop Sanborn is a bit more moderate, but still a dogmatic sedevacantist, since he would hold that people could be excused from formal heresy due to confusion, etc.  But he still holds that the conclusion that the See is vacant is dogmatically certain.

Yes, let's take a look at the definition you and Xavier came up with:

Dogmatic Sedevacantism:  SVism is dogma.  If you don't believe it, you are in heresy!

Now, if this is your definition, then that would mean that a person would be called a dogmatic sedevacantist and guilty of your dogmatic sedevacantism if he/she believed that all non-sedes were heretics.

And yet you have now accused me of being/strongly implied that I am a dogmatic sedevacantist despite the fact that I do not believe nor ever declared any such thing.  So far, the fact that I will not assist at a mass una cuм the heretic Bergoglio and the fact that I believe that the Novus Ordo church is a sect (ie. not the Catholic Church) is enough for you to accuse me of "DS".

Just because I choose not to assist at an una cuм mass doesn't mean I believe that those who do are heretics/schismatics.  Just because I believe that the Novus Ordo church is a non-Catholic sect doesn't mean that I believe that all those who are still stuck in its pews (including those poor nuns) are necessarily heretics/schismatics.

This is what I mean by the fact that the definition of "DS" changes to fit what the accuser believes is "going too far".  I call BS that you and Xavier (and many others on this forum) believe a person is a DS only if he believes all non-sedes are heretics.

So what is the Catholic Church now? The CMRI or the SSPV or the SSG organization or other?

I don't have all the answers Matto.  I just know that the Novus Ordo can not possibly be the Catholic Church because it universally teaches and professes a false, non-Catholic religion.