When you start up with your sophistries again, I will be sure to point them out as they occur. Yesterday with Cecilia you picked up with your favorite, that she was not making proper distinctions. Your distinctions have a way of exonerating anti-Christs, or attempting to. I will admit there are times when I will see a heresy where there isn't one, and I do appreciate correction. But you bend over backwards to defend EVERYTHING your pet anti-Popes do and say. I knew there was something wrong from the beginning when you downplayed, if not pooh-poohed, the entire idea of Freemasons in the Church, as if it were irrelevant.
One feature of sophistry is its convoluted and tortured logic. You try to make yourself sound like Garrigou-Lagrange, but the science is not there, it's all an act. You are self-learned and have an imperfect grasp of theological concepts. That's okay, so do I -- the difference is that I admit it. You never say simply what can be said in a mind-clouding and convoluted way, that is long on rhetoric but often bereft of substance.
Someone more innocent than myself might mistakenly believe you know what you're talking about. Well, this habit of speaking in inflated and twisted language to intimidate sheep who are afraid to go against someone they think knows better than they do is a habit of... Guess who? That's right, it is the exact same bullying, pseudo-intellectual routine of the man you love to defend, Joseph Ratzinger. That, on top of the fact that you clearly bear a loathing for sedevacantists, one that you think justifies you hissing at them like a serpent, makes you a particularly unpleasant character.
Why do you think you have this many ignores? Lots of people on this board are SSPX, but even they won't defend you.