Do you not reject that dogma by resisting him...just because you recognize him as your pope doesn't mean you have been subject to him. there have been many anti popes in the history of the church, by that fact alone you should realize the possibility Jewgorglio is an anti pope..which he is. Even if you're not convinced you have no basis to be so anti sede. My arguement is you are not erring on the side of caution because if you don't hold the sede position you are either stating
a. Jewgorglio professes the Catholic faith ( he doesn't) or
b.that he is a heretic but since the church hasn't made a declaration he is still pope
what other options are there that I'm missing, please enlighten me. at the end of the day the difference between you and me is you believe you need a declaration from the Church and I don't believe the Church teaches it. In no way am I putting my soul a risk for taking the sede position, you can't prove that.  I don't believe in my own opinion, I rely on the church doctors.


St. Francis De Sales (17thcentury), Doctor of the Church,The Catholic Controversy
, pp.305-306: " Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church

No, I accept that dogma, you reject it by rejecting, denouncing, disrespecting and insulting him as pope - as if you have that right. Hopefully you will come to realize this some day while you are still alive.

Think about St. Thomas More's last words. Everyone can remain the pope's good subjects - but God's first. That is what Catholics do.

Your real problem comes from you knowing of his sins. You've gotten yourself convinced that this knowledge qualifies you to make all manner of slanderous, disrespectful and outrageous remarks against him. You've fooled yourself into believing that your knowledge qualifies you to declare he is not the pope and that he has never even been elected.

Newsflash! - this knowledge in no way qualifies you or anyone on earth to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected, but now you've given into this and blindly embrace it - and from what I know about it, good luck getting yourself back into reality.

We, as Catholics first, then his subjects, have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful. This is how Catholics act - they remain the pope's good subject - but God's first, always God's first whether we're talking about the current pope or the first pope it does not matter, always God's first.

And as pope, he is entirely capable of commanding something that is sinful, which has been proven over the last +50 years, and the sheeple proved themselves fooled, because they obeyed sinful wishes of the pope and hierarchy, because they were not subject first to God - and that is to their shame, they have no one to blame but themselves.

So since you obviously have no answer to the ridiculous question, can we agree that your answer must be that, because sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic, that no good comes from sedevacantism?

Oh, and please cease quoting Catholic saints in your effort to vindicate your sedevacantism, if you want to actually make an impact with quotes, then only quote from sedevacantist saints and popes please. Thank you.

The only way I can see sedevacantism as being true in respect to the infallibility of the Church in identifying her head is if the past 5 popes have been truly and validly elected as real popes, but that each one at some point has abdicated their papacy, because the act of election, enthronement and submission comprises all that is necessary for a man to be truly considered as pope.

Even then, the loss of authority in the public sphere is debatable. Theologians are not unanimous on whether the Church must declare him outside the Church in some fashion or whether it is left to private recognition of the fact.

I don't see how the determination of sedevacantism can be left to private recognition without devolving into Protestant Chaos.

The Catholic Church is infallible, yes. The conciliar church - not so much. Perhaps you do not understand the distinction.

I think you don't realize, there was no conciliar Church in 1963 when Montini was elected Pope. Therefore he was pope. And after him all the electors were  cardinals he had made as Pope or made by previous Popes, making the election of JPII also valid.
And if you are versed in canon law you would realize there is a thing called common error of fact.
Factual Common error is a mechanism the Church utilizes for supplying jurisdiction in cases of necessity. Now, if the Bishops who were made cardinals legitimately mistook a non-Pope for a Pope, common error of fact supplies jurisdiction to the act and renders the cardinals true cardinals.
Now, the act of electing a Pope is not an act of jurisdiction, but an act of administration initiated by the Cardinal Camerlongo. 
Therefore all elections of any persons to the papacy is putatively valid, and all Cardinal candidates are putatively valid until proven otherwise.
Therefore any act of election, enthronement and submission creates a valid Pope within the same Vatican structure that has always existed.
Now, can these popes lose their jurisdiction? Yes. Can they lose their office? Yes.
But again, who will declare it for the benefit of all? And where will the visibility of the Church be? The beauty of the Papacy is one can point to it and ask a group of bishops one question, "Are you with the Pope?" And their answer suffices to establish visible unity.
With that gone, where is the unity? Where is the perpetual visibility of the Church? Relegated to warring factions of headless priests and Popeless bishops?
How can I buy that?

I choose to insult Jewgorglio because he is an enemy of the Church of Christ, surely you can't be so blind, Hopefully you will come to realize this some day while you are still alive.
you write: "Your real problem comes from you knowing of his sins."
me: nope,your real problem is inventing things instead of keeping with the facts, I never mentioned anything about his sins, we're talking about heresy. You've fooled yourself into believing an heretic, non catholic  is your pope ruling the Church of Christ

So since you obviously have no answer to my question: what good is it to believe an heretic is your pope..can we agree that your answer must be: nothing    
you write:"Oh, and please cease quoting Catholic saints in your effort to vindicate your sedevacantism, if you want to actually make an impact with quotes, then only quote from sedevacantist saints and popes please"
me: more ridiculous statements on your part, the sedevacantist position is catholic..but since you want more quotes , I won't let you down
you write: Newsflash! - this knowledge in no way qualifies you or anyone on earth to declare him deprived of his office
me: Archbishop Lefebvre's quote posted below, he is quoted "It is possible that we might be forced"  who is this we he is referring to.....newsflash you don't know what you are talking about
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

St. Robert Bellarmine,
De Romano Pontifice , II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as
Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of
what he is not a member;now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the
Church,and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St.
Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. Degreat. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope ."St. Antoninus (1459): "
In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone
and without any other sentence, separated from the Church . A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to
be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since
he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church ." ( Summa Theologica , cited in Actes de Vatican I    . V. Frond pub.)

Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986: “This is the situation in which we find ourselves. I have not created it. I would die to make it go away! We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope. Because it seems to me initially – I do not yet want to say it solemnly and publicly – that it is impossible for a pope to be publicly and formally heretical.”

Thank You

Oh, and please cease quoting Catholic saints in your effort to vindicate your sedevacantism, if you want to actually make an impact with quotes, then only quote from sedevacantist saints and popes please. Thank you.
Still can't figure out what good is sedevacantism? Me neither.

First Vatican Council.
Session 4 : 18 July 1870
First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

Look it up.

You look it up.
Calling the pope a heretic because he speaks and teaches heresy is not calling him defamatory names for the sake of making a joke out of his situation. It is plain to see that you do not understand the difference.

Pope Leo XII was not a sedevacantist pope so why are you referencing him? Do you think being a name dropper carries any weight?

 
The sedevacantists who quote Catholic authors in their attempts to vindicate their sedevacantism has the same effect as prots who quote Scripture in their attempt to convince us that their man made doctrines are true and the Catholic doctrines are false.

There is no difference.

Not too surprising that you still have zero clue and still cannot even begin to think of an answer to the question - what good is sedevacantism?

stop embarrassing yourself, you can't handle the numerous quotes that support the sede position from Catholic authors  so like a little child you mention they were not sede popes , why don't you come out and state what you really believe ... that anyone who believes a pope is not a true pope due to public heresy without a   declaration ...is not a Catholic ...since  you are arguing like a (dogmatic pope is pope until a declaration ) why not be man enough and state what you really feel....your nonsensical prot example carries no weight..you don't have a clue...

Checkmate.

No, you need to actually look it up before you claim either defeat or victory. You call yourself Truecharity for a reason - no?  Well, let's see true charity and post wth it is that you are even talking about.


While you're posting in this thread, why not actually answer the question - what good is sedevacantism?

Precious Blood.  Chapter 12 of Daniel says that the Sacrifice of the Mass will end and for ---years. (equal to 3 and a half years).  So, home alone?  IMO I don't see signs that we are there, yet.  So, there is still Precious Blood available?  Yes, I do see that possible.