This is quite a childish tactic and extremely deceptive. First, you definitely posted those quotes knowing full well that they do not apply. Second, you add a prediction that I will say they don't apply, because they don't, so that you can look like you are right and super intelligent. It's hilarious. I don't, however, think they support the position that the Papacy can remain vacant for an undetermined amount of time. So you were wrong on that one.
No, it is no tactic at all, and there is no deception involved because those Catholic quotes are the simple truths to live and die by, have always been the simple truth and will forever remain simple, Catholic truths to live by.
It's simple, basic Catholicity - sedeism, being a *new* idea, is not Catholic. This new idea is accepted and promoted only by a few as if it is doctrine, which means sedewhateverism cannot be Catholic. The whole idea has not been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, that is how we know it is not Catholic.
Like all sedes who cling to error, poor lad argues against this teaching saying basically the reason sedeism is new, is because it's a reaction to a new situation - it is for this reason that these quoted teachings do not and cannot apply - and he says this as if our Holy Mother did not already forewarn us of what She expects of us in this type of situation.
The Church always condemning as an act of schism those who presume to decide the status of the pope, we may be absolutely certain is not among those expectations. So we may be absolutely certain of at least one course that we may never presume to undertake, sedevacantism.
Your argument against the quoted teachings by attempting to equate sedewhateverism to the period of sede vacante, the space of time between the death and election of popes, is altogether childish, bordering on insanity in virtue of reality.
Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 440927 times)