CathInfo.com

Perhaps I am logically missing something---after all I am a woman.

But if Francis is the Pope and if the VII church is the true church, then we all must accept and follow its teachings.  Is that true?

The V2 church is not the True Church. We know this because, as you said.... "the VII Church teaches that a person can be saved regardless of his faith.."

I didn't vote either.  It's a stupid question.

Yes, depending on your perspective, the answer is N/A.  As I said, it would be like asking a faithful Catholic, "what would you do if you found out that the dogma of the Holy Trinity was wrong?"

To quote the Robot from Lost in Space, "that does not compute; that does not compute".



I did respond because IF I found that to be the case, and I believe that the Holy Ghost guides the Church, I would become an NO Catholic fighting the excesses, abuses, and misinterpretations of Vatican II from within the Church.

It's easier for me to believe that Religious Liberty is correct Catholic doctrine than that the Church would teach grave error to the faithful in an Ecuмenical Council.

It's like the famous story about St. Thomas.  When his fellow monks told him that there were pigs flying outside, St. Thomas went to take a look.  They ridiculed him for being so gullible.  But St. Thomas' response was:  "“I would rather believe that pigs can fly than believe that my brethren could lie.”

Similarly, I would rather believe that pigs have religious liberty than that Holy Mother Church would lie and mislead.  Then, if I was wrong, and I met God at my judgment, I would respond with great peace of soul to God, "I based my beliefs on what the Church that you founded taught.  I trusted your Church."

The OP question cannot be answered because it makes no sense. I wouldn't be sedevacantist if I thought there were a real possibility that it were wrong. It's like asking a Catholic, "What would you do if Scientology were proved to be true?" If I could come up with a serious answer to that question, I would not really be Catholic in the first place.
.
In any case, with sedevacantism, most people arrive at that idea more because of the lack of any alternative explanation for what has happened since the death of Pius XII. A real pope can't proclaim heresy at Vatican 2, can't approve the evil 1983 code of canon law, can't impose the new "Mass" on the Church, can't canonize evil people like Mother Theresa or Paul VI, and can't teach modernism. So what's left? Clearly they are not popes, since the alternative is impossible. And sure enough, even a brief glance at canon law, Church history and the teaching of all the Fathers, theologians and Doctors of the Church confirms what was already obvious, namely that 1) a heretic cannot validly hold office in the Church, and that 2) if a prelate in the Church publicly professes heresy, he automatically loses both his membership in the Church and of course his authority too.
.
How about we turn this around? What would you do, XavierSem, if it were proved that the papal claimants since the death of Pius XII have not been valid popes?
.
Come to think of it, what would you do if one of your "popes" made a law that people living in unrepentant adultery can receive Holy Communion? Oh wait ...