[Ultra Sonic 007]

Yes, there is. It seems you're decisive about the legitimacy of some "popes" but indecisive about that of other "popes".

And you've been unable to gather from my prior posts that Vatican II is the rather prominent dividing line? How is that decisive or indecisive?

And I'm wondering why and by whose authority you make such decisions.

I can't bind anyone's conscience but my own, as I lack canonical authority. But I can determine that "A" and "Not A" are mutually exclusive. If the Church taught "A" prior to Vatican II (to the point of outright condemning "Not A" as heretical or erroneous), and the 'Church' teaches "Not A" after Vatican II, then faith demands that I hold fast to what came before in light of the Church's own indefectibility. It's as simple as that.

(Though, I find it rather interesting that you would lecture me about by what "authority I make such decisions" when you have numerous posts criticizing the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, etc.)

If, by the hand of God, Bishop Strickland, is elected Pope at the next, hopefully soon, conclave, would you acknowledge his as a true Pope?

I don't know.

[ebb tide]

And you've been unable to gather from my prior posts that Vatican II is the rather prominent dividing line?

I agree that VC II is the root of the crisis in the Catholic Church.

But do you think we'll never have a true Catholic pope because of that?