I for one don't have the time nor the interest to analyze the "Synod".  I no more care about anything Jorge's Synod comes up with that the latest proceedings from the "Church of England" or the Eastern Orthodox.  Caring about what they say is to give them some respectability that they do not deserve.

The dimonds will probably do it.

Again, you just make this up.  If you've been following the debate here on CI, you would have noticed that it's predominantly the "dogmatic sedevacantists" who are the most hostile to +Vigano.  Apart from them, you have Meg, who despises all things sedevacantist and Miser because he said a good word or two about Trump here or there, and now you because of what he said about the war in Ukraine.  But, no, by and large, the dogmatic SVs are not "on board."

You'll find that Sean and I tend to be +Vigano's strongest supporters here, and Sean is squarely R&R, while I am anti-dogmatic-SV and consider myself to be in the middle, a sedeprivationist/impoundist or sede-doubtist.  For me, the primary consideration is in fact, as you said, the reputation of the Church.  So it's precisely the opposite of what you claim.  Protestants are using the Bergoglio "pontificate" to have a field day in smearing the Church, on account of Jorge's promotion of sodomy, his religious indifferentism (I've seen Prots call him a heretic for denying the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation), his promotion of the globalist agenda, climate change nonsense, the jab, etc.  So it's Bergoglio who's bringing disgrace upon the papacy ... and not +Vigano.  In fact, when I've argued with Prots online who are using Bergoglio to attack the Catholic Church, I simply respond by saying that Bergoglio is not a Catholic pope but an infiltrator who usurped the papacy.

If we go by the Vigano poll thread, half of the voters maintain a neutral or undecided position. Then there are two other strong contingents, one of which is pro-Vigano and the other which labels him some kind of fraud. I never said anything about the posters who have been debating you (it was a general statement about the board), and I doubt you could accurately represent the individual positions of those in question, either. You can hardly keep the facts straight between different threads on different days, and you hold to numerous falsehoods which are easily verifiable using the history available on CathInfo. I think we can safely disregard this little construct of yours built dishonestly for the sake of refuting me in your own mind.

That you believe the rejection of Francis as a non-Catholic heretic is possible in the current political clime does not mean that "it's precisely the opposite of what you claim." As I wrote in the previous post, these efforts still help in discrediting the Catholic Church and it is doubtful that such an event would even result in a Traditional Catholic pontificate. It's analogous to you attacking the United States and supporting the idea that she and her peoples deserves to be annihilated due to political changes in the last few decades, which still face a great deal of resistance. While it may not be humanely possible to salvage either one, joining in the enemy's efforts to destroy them is just as bad, or worse. What actually needs to be done is what Vigano has failed to do, which is give a name to the enemy (the global organized Communist movement), punish the guilty and protect the innocent.

That's the whole point.  They aren't real catholics, so their opinion matters not.  Let them leave; they aren't doing themselves (or the Church) any good by retaining the name 'catholic'.

One day you may very well stand before the judgment seat of Christ and be brought to account for the deceived souls that you abandoned from your Russian Orthodox enclave in the hinterlands of Russia.

That's the whole point.  They aren't real catholics, so their opinion matters not.  Let them leave; they aren't doing themselves (or the Church) any good by retaining the name 'catholic'.

Sorry to go off topic. Pax, you now hold the sedevacantist position? Does it pertain only to Bergoglio or does it include the other usurpers after 1958 (or 1963)? If this is correct, when did you come to this conclusion?

I know this particular post was in response to dxcat40, but you have on numerous occasions called out the "dogmatic sedevacantists" regarding Vigano.  Exactly who are these "dogmatic sedevacantists"?

There are a group of individuals here who maintain that mere belonging to the Conciliar Church makes someone a heretic, making no allowance for material error combined with the fact that no legitimate Church authority has condemned the Conciliar Church, and the adherence to a heretical proposition is not required to call someone in the Novus Ordo a heretic merely for belonging to it.  Those are the ones to whom I refer as dogmatic sedevacantists in this context.

I talk about Communism. Your obsession with Holy Mother Russia, Flat Earth and other dumb cօռspιʀαcιҽs are what is actually limitless. If it's anti-Western then it is OK for you, Lad and other anti anti-Communists.

More of your inane false dilemmas.  Nobody's anti-anti-Communist here.  That's yet another slander.  Because we don't buy into your idiotic nonsense, you declare us anti-anti-Communist and at one point even slandered me as defending the Chicoms (when I've never done anything of the sort).  We're just anti-stupidity, that's all.

You went soft on the Chicoms but you will never admit it.

It's about time where you should be banned for slander.  I've never once gone "soft" on the Chicoms.  And there isn't a single anti anti-Communist here.  You repeat your malicious slanders against anyone who doesn't buy into your stupidity.

It's about time where you should be banned for slander.  I've never once gone "soft" on the Chicoms.  And there isn't a single anti anti-Communist here.  You repeat your malicious slanders against anyone who doesn't buy into your stupidity.

Give it up, Lad. Get help. You are just wasting our time. You have these episodes every now and again, but you already told us you were turning over a new leaf. What happened to that? How can anyone trust anything you say when these resolutions don't even last a week?