All misquoting Catholic teachings do is sink you further into your error as your posts continue to demonstrate.
 
Either quote from sedevacantist popes and saints or give it up. It's that simple.

I think you should give up trying to use reason in argumentation. Sedevacantist popes??

I am probably wrong, and I certainly don't hold that one mujst be sede to be Catholic.  I do hold that one does not get to 'sift' what is Catholic from pronouncements, at whatever level of import they may have, from someone held to be the Vicar of Christ.  Simply put if I understand Joe Schmoe to be Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ picks North Carolina in tomorrow night's National Championship, I better have a damn good reason to pick Gonzaga.    Given all that some of the "concilliar" popes have said and done, much like ANY Catholic picking Roy Williams and his treasonous Tarheels in said game is suspect of HERESY ipso facto, though  Gonzaga is nominally catholic at this stage, CLEARLY he could not be a true pope or my Kansas Jayhawks would be the infallible Choice!!!

All kidding aside and attempt to lighten the question a bit, I am not saying Francis is not the Pope, I just don't see how he could be?  As a Catholic we ALL yearn to be in union with the man occupying the seat (at least ostensibly he is) but I think I lean towards sede vacante or aftr least Ladislaus' sede doubt ism as it gives a certain peace of mind that I am not disobeying our holy Father because he just ain't it.  I cannot be in union with heretics any more than I could dis-avow my children.  Peace of mind with no rancor is the value to me.  I don't have to continue ever more difficult mental gymnastics to continue to consider these men popes.

I think you're safe with your decision..it's important not to fall for these anti-sede's attacks as if they have the higher ground...they don't..even if they are the majority

Stubborn, I think you should go through all of your posts on this forum in which you argue against SV. Compare that to when you argue against BOD. If you will notice that when you argue against BOD, you cite the Magisterium and quote many things. When it comes to you attacking SV, you will notice that you almost NEVER use any quotes from the Church to prove your points........

You are wrong. You must not have gone back far enough through my posts because if you did, you would have found that in most of my earlier posts, I quoted a lot of teachings from bulls, encyclicals and etc. condemning the error of sedevacantism.

Using magisterial teachings to disprove sedevacantism to sedevacantists is like using Trent's canons to argue with the BODers to argue the 'doctrine of a BOD' "infallibly defined". IOW, it has proven to be a waste of my time so I pretty much gave up on using magisterial teachings and have been trying to appeal to plain old reality and even the common sense we all are supposed to have.

For example; Pope Boniface VIII did not decree.......It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff unless you do not believe he is the Roman Pontiff.

Consider that the dogma is rendered meaningless by adding the proviso of the sedevacantists; "unless you do not believe he is the Roman Pontiff."
 
Many (most?) sedevacantists have made this proviso into a doctrine unto itself, hence the reason why sedevacantism has for many, become a doctrine of man, believed to be a doctrine of the Church - and sedevacantism, as a doctrine of man and being contrary to the teachings of the Church and not found in any teachings of the Church, as a rule I won't read quotes from popes and Fathers which are used in an attempt to vindicate sedevacantism.

There is absolutely zero reason for sedevacantism, yet per the dogma, there's an eternity of reasons to be  against it. Our salvation is not in any way dependent upon the pope's status. The people who reject this truth necessarily have got to reject other necessary Catholic truths and principles in order to cling to and embrace sedevacantism, in much the same way as those rabid (not all) BODers necessarily must reject other Catholic truths and principles in order to cling to and embrace a BOD.  

In the past I explained my theory regarding the "well respected" 19th and 20th century theologians - it is only my theory and one which I don't know how to prove other than using those quotes from +ABL which support it and from Fr. Wathen which support it, and those quotes which are half truths and lies from those who rely on those theologians and quote them regularly - yet for me, it proves itself by seeing how so many people including clergy, have been taught half truths, flat out lies and confused theology as regards many things, not only a BOD, but also infallibility, magisterium and "the Church". Just read a few of nado's and bosco's posts - you tell me where they came up with their theology. If you spend the time,  I think you'll find their errors can be traced back in some part to those "well respected" theologians of the 19th and 20th century.


 

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?

Stubborn,

It's nearly impossible to reason with SV's. I know you have tried. Most are too far gone. They're a few cans short of a six-pack, mentally-speaking, and it seems than nothing can really change that.

Akin to a form of protestantism: Pick and choose Church teaching I deem worthy.

Yes, so basically there are two authentic choices you can make-
EWTN or CMRI.
Catholic Answers or True Restoration.
Bishop Barron or Bishop Sanborn
These two choices are the only ones that can account for a truly Catholic attitude and position- one of pious submission and obedience to the whole of magisterial teaching.
That's why Bishop Sanborn has said he has greater respect for Indult People than SSPXers, because they submit to what they believe is the true Magisterium and follow through with the notion that the Vatican II changes are purely cosmetic.
OTOH, we have a huge problem I am beginning to be aware of.
You see, the Magisterium is not something the bishops and Pope make up, it is Christ speaking through his Church.
So when you hear the anathemas of Trent, this is the judgment of God. This is the voice of God upon the earth. When you hear the Creed of Nicea, this is the judgment of God, the same with Quanta Cura and all the Papal Magisterium-
"He who hears you hears me."
Pope Leo XIII teaches the living Magisterium is the voice of God upon the earth.
So if you want Francis, if you want him for a Pope, then simply acknowledge, Amoris Laetitia is the voice of Christ. The Novus Ordo is the will of Christ. The unanimous consent of the Novus Ordo bishops in the CCC is the voice of Christ.
Either it is or it is not. If it is not, then neither is that authority from which it issues from God. But if the authority is legitimate, you are fighting Christ's will for his Church O traditionalist, and you ought to know, "A weapon formed against them will not prosper."
So choose you this day whom you will serve:
Francis, your ego, or the authentic Magisterium?

Stubborn,

It's nearly impossible to reason with SV's. I know you have tried. Most are too far gone. They're a few cans short of a six-pack, mentally-speaking, and it seems than nothing can really change that.

Thanks Meg and for the most part, I agree - and I stopped expecting to change that a long time ago. Mostly I post the things I do for those on the fence, those trads who get caught up in the confusion who might only need a simple dose of reality to keep them from catching the syndrome themselves - the easiest and surest way to keep from catching the bug is still prevention, which means to avoid it like the plague for the good of their souls.



 

.
That's why Bishop Sanborn has said he has greater respect for Indult People than SSPXers, because they submit to what they believe is the true Magisterium and follow through with the notion that the Vatican II changes are purely cosmetic.

+Sanborn still exhibits the effects of the priestly formation he received at the Novus Ordo seminary where he graduated cuм laude from.

P.S. The Hierarchy is not "the magisterium".

Thanks Meg and for the most part, I agree - and I stopped expecting to change that a long time ago. Mostly I post the things I do for those on the fence, those trads who get caught up in the confusion who might only need a simple dose of reality to keep them from catching the syndrome themselves - the easiest and surest way to keep from catching the bug is still prevention, which means to avoid it like the plague for the good of their souls.



 

I hadn't thought about prevention. I see now why you keep up the debate with impossible odds. Hopefully the debates will prevent others from falling into the SV error.