CathInfo.com

I will never understand how someone can be R&R and certain Francis is the pope. It doesn't make sense. Accusing sedevacantists of mixing infallibility with indefectibility is just dodging the issue with the latter by attacking the strawman of the former. Fact of the matter is, if Vatican 2 is a legitimate Church council and Francis is a legitimate pope, then the Church has been taken over by non-Catholics and has promulgated teachings and rites which are harmful to faith - by definition, a defection.

Maybe your definition is wrong.

Ok then Meg, I'll bite.
What is a defection then? What would have to happen for it to constitute a defection?

I'm fairly certain that you would not pay any attention to anything that I would say; except to refute it outright. Sedes haven't the ability to see beyond sedeism. Sedeism gets ahold of a person and imbeds itself so that no other view can even be remotely considered. Sedeism is insidious. No use trying to reason with a sede.

What if the Popes since 1958 have been anti-popes, since Cardinal Siri was canonically elected, white smoke went up, the crowd roared, it was announced that a new pope had been elected, he accepted the papacy, chose the name Pope Gregory XVII and then an outside source bnai brith, gave the order to threaten him with the deaths of all Catholic hierarchy behind the Iron Curtain. He capitulated and resigned, which was invalid according to cannon law because it was forced.

The Freemasons/ Communists wanted a Pope in exile (also in approved Catholic Prophecy) because they had had a bad experience when they put a Freemason on the Papal Throne previously -- it was Pius IX, who was converted to Catholicism by virtue of the office -- being on the throne of Peter.

So this time they got what they wanted. A true Pope in exile and neutralized, and a series of anti-popes in the Vatican.

Pope Gregory XVII was succeeded by Pope Gregory XVIII and after that they have been in hiding.

This view is not sede.