I have heard, seen and experienced nothing but good fruits, sound doctrine and wonderful Christian charity from the clergy (and laity) of CMRI.  They're as Catholic as the "pope" (as my grandfather would say back in the day) - LOL.

Sound doctrine?

Mark Pivarunas, as well as the CMRI as a whole, hold that souls can be saved in any false religion, including in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. In doing this, they differ in NOTHING from the conciliar Popes they imagine themselves with the authority to "reject".

Please look further to what sound Catholic doctrine really is.

Fact remains that CMRI operates outside the Catholic Church.

Your "church", that which you believe "Pope Francis" is the current head of, teaches that Protestants and Schismatics are in the Church.

So if your "church" teaches that Protestant heretics are inside the Church and can even receive Holy Communion, what's your point in saying the CMRI is "outside the Church"?

For anyone that actually understands Catholicism, this is actually a big deal.

Catholicism teaches that what you believe is an impossibility.

The Catholic Church that Christ founded 2000 years ago whose earthly head is the Roman Pontiff and whose hierarchy has been infiltrated by liberals, infidels and freemasons.

Infiltrated the Church can be and has been, but does that mean that it can teach error officially to all the faithful? Can it lead them astray?

If one refers to the "Conciliar Church" or the "Novus Ordo” Church and one means by that an institution headed by Pope Francis, but not the Catholic Church, then one is a schismatic.

Not according to your own authorities. Your own authorities and what you think is the Church recognizes declared heretics and schismatics as members of the Church. The "archbishop" of Canterbury is recognized as an authentic Christian and as having a God-given mission by your "church" and your last 6 "popes".

You are against what you think is the Church and the ones you deem your authorities. You contradict them and disobey them and don't follow what they say.

How do you explain this?

Do you know better than them? Do you have more authority than them? Aren't YOU the schismatic here, by going against your "church" and your "popes"?

There is only one Church, not two.

Yeah, and public heretics like Bergoglio are outside of It.

The Church then, which must have the four marks, has ceased to exist. These marks, the visible magisterium, are inextricably linked to the Church.

And yet what you think is the Church headed by Bergoglio hasn't had at least 3 of them since the 60's, so it is NOT the Church, by logic.

Also, if the Chair of Peter has been vacant since 1958 as the CMRI professes that means there are no legitimate cardinals anymore, and without cardinals there is simply no way to elect a new pope.

False, for more than a thousand years Popes weren't even elected by Cardinals, and theologians teach they are NOT intrinsically necessary to elect a Pope.

The whole sedevacantist logic is nonsensical and utterly irrational.

You dishonestly misrepresent the sedevacantist position.

Have you no regard for your particular judgment?

Your "church", that which you believe "Pope Francis" is the current head of, teaches that Protestants and Schismatics are in the Church.

Show me a binding / infallible Magisterial docuмent that teaches this and highlight the words.

Regardless of what Popes believe as private individuals, Catholics must believe what has been solemnly defined in the past. There have been a few Popes who have taught or held various heresies, but as they have not attempted to pronounce them ex cathedra, infallibility and Church indefectibility are not threatened.

After discussing with sedevacantists, one quickly realizes that these people are living in a mental construct that is rooted primarily in emotion, but not facts.

I say this in all honesty: you are the one living in a mental construct that is rooted primarily in emotion, not facts.

You accuse sedevacantists of being emotional and not going by facts, without giving any proof or even a single example.

Do you realize you have make baseless assertions, without backing them up? Do you not realize this is dishonest?

But I will answer your questions anyways.

1. It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world.

And yet you do this all the time. Do you not say these last "popes" have been infiltrators, liberals, heretics, apostates, scandalous? You judge all that they say and do, and reject it, on a daily basis.

As has been repeatedly stated, sedevacantists do not "judge" any of the Vatican 2 "popes" because they have deposed themselves for public heresy. Sedevacantists merely point out the fact.

Not even an Ecuмenical Council has the authority to depose the Pope.

True, and this has nothing to do with SV.

It would have to be another Pope that does it. (therefore sedevacantism will never amount to anything but a personal opinion).

False, this was refuted by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, who taught that a manifestly heretical Pope deposes himself. This is the common teaching of theologians.

Have you found a way to elect a new Pope without Cardinals / Bishops? Back up your claim (with reliable references) that there is no need of Cardinals to elect a Pope.

The same St. Robert Bellarmine said that if the Cardinals were all wiped out, then the duty falls to the Roman Clergy, and if that is wiped out, then the Church can elect one.

2. Which Bishops are currently holding the authority to supply the Church jurisdiction?

I don't know, but I do know for a fact that it's not the Novus Ordo "bishops", because they are all manifest and public heretics and apostates.

Don't you know that formal heretics lose all jurisdiction?

What visible magisterium is doing the supplying?

Same thing here, I don't know, but I do know for a fact that it can't possibly be the Novus Ordo "magisterium", because it has oficially taught heresy and error for decades, which the true Magisterium CANNOT DO, for then Christ would be the Author of heresy and error.

Is that possible? Can Christ do that?

if supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope (which according to the sedevacantists, is actually an anti-pope), and held by the Church (Bishops) during interregnums, these Bishops must be visible, they cannot be invisible, so where are they?

You think visibility is only optical, material visibility, but it obviously isn't.

All the false sects and churches are "visible" to the entire world, and yet none of them are the real Church of Christ.

The "Archbishop" of Canterbury is plenty visible, and yet he's no real Archbishop at all, because he is a heretical schismatic.

Nestorius was plenty visible too, and yet he was no Bishop because he publicly preached heresy.

Same thing with the Novus Ordo "popes" and "hierarchy": sure, they are "visible" in the material sense, anyone can see them, but they do NOT possess the Faith, because they are public and manifest heretics and apostates, so their "visibility" is meaningless because heretics do not represent the Church.

To be truly visible, one must be a real Catholic and possess the Faith, not just claim and pretend to.

But this is all common sense and easy to grasp, so what is your point with this?

1

Double Post

Quote from: Malleus

You accuse sedevacantists of being emotional and not going by facts, without giving any proof or even a single example.

But there is no need to give an example. Let the posts speak by themselves.

Take a deep breath!

Anyway, I am sleepy now and you still did not respond anything of substance,(I am guessing because you simply do not know the answers but are merely parroting sedevacantist propaganda found in Bellarmine Forums), as always! as an easy way out, you only focus on personal insults addressed to my person, as if you knew me, so it is time for me to go.

It seems to me, the strength of a Sedes argument is inversely proportional to the size of their font and the amount of direct ad nominems they can throw.  

Do not let these threads become an occasion of sin. Good night!

We did not respond anything of substance?  Yes, we did, you are the one who didn't.

We are parroting things?  Everything said has been said before, because it is the Church who teaches it!

Insulting your person?  Calling you a feeneyite is not insulting your person.

The size of the font? Nobody's font size was enlarged...

Ad hominems? No ad hominems were said, someone accused you of being a feeneyite but that is a theological position, and it is true, and relevant to the topic, because you are judging what is right and wrong from a Pope, but you say a Pope can't be judged....so it is relevant.