CathInfo.com

What make you think that you have the authority to reject an Ecunemical Council and a Liturgical Rite approved by a legitimate Pope?

R&R argument of authority is laughable.  

You aren't asking the right question. We don't have to prove anything that you sedes come up with, because your questions are not relevant to those who are prudent. You take the most extreme route possible, which isn't Catholic, but it's very AMERICAN. (Think of all of the extremist sects in this country, due to "religious liberty").

You frame your questions in a manipulative manner. It's diabolical, but you can't see that.

A "Pope" who is not a member of the Church cannot be his head. If you want to argue that an ecclesiastical declaration is necessary, then fine, but you cannot deny the underlying principle where the conclusion is derived from.

The fact that this is not a novelty is proved by the fact that Bellarmine already wrote about in the XVI century and furthermore, he says that the Church Fathers teach it in unison.

Your "facts" are not in fact "facts." They are an invention of your mind. You have gone the extreme route in order to have some emotional relief from the severe Crisis in the Church. But you have no authority to force others to your view, just because you have the need to be comfortable.

1) It is deceptive because you know that those quotes do not prove R&R. You know it because I asked you to explain how they prove it and you didn't.
2) Sedevacantism takes the Dogma that Manifest heretics are not Catholic and draws conclusions from that. Show how that is a new idea. R&R may claim to be Catholic but no one in the history of the Church ever claimed one may have selective obedience, under any circuмstance, towards the Pope.
3) If there was a Pope right now, I wouldn't decide his status. I also would not take it upon myself to decide when I needed to obey and submit to him like you do. In fact, you're projecting your own false beliefs on us again. You are the one who decides upon the status of everything your "pope" says.
4) Here's a challenge for you; show where I argued against your quotes. Your quotes have nothing at all to do with what we're arguing. There is no truth in you.

1) Those quotes wholly condemn sedeism and at the same time prove "R&R" to be the only correct response. R&R is correct because R&R actually applies the inherent-to-the-Catholic-faith-principle, that: "No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin." - Fr. Wathen, The Great Sacrilege

The sedes, clinging to the new doctrine of sedewhateverism which has been wrought by their own confused conclusion, wholly reject, not only the above Catholic principle, they also condemn those to be heretics who embrace and apply it to this situation.  

2) We know sedeism [mis]uses dogma to draw their confused conclusion, which they make into doctrines - or as often happens, they make their confused conclusion that the pope is not the pope, anything from being a dogmatic certainty to dogmatically doubtful. The quoted teachings expose the whole sedewhatever idea for what it is, not Catholic.

3) There is a pope right now, he was put in place the same way all other popes were put in place for the last +1000 years - there is no other way for the Church to have a pope.

4) See #1.