[armydoc]

This isn't about infallibility. Papal infallibility, while certainly a problem for protestants in theory, has become a practical non-issue in the modern age, simply because it hasn't been invoked for over 60 years and probably won't be invoked again. So, the average Catholic is required to employ considerable interpretation to modern (fallible) papal teachings, comparing them to fallible historical teachings such as the CCC. Perhaps you could help clear this up for me by referring me to the definitive list of infallible, binding Catholic teachings. Surely it exists.

As far as your practical sedevacantism, there really is no other way to accurately describe your position. By your own admission, you "ignore" him and advise others to do the same. Ignore, as in act as if he doesn't exist. The chair is empty in a practical sense.

[Arthur McGowan]

As a matter of fact, all the de fide propositions taught by the Church can be listed. They are identified as such in every manual of dogmatic theology, and in the catechism. If you want them listed, use google.

I am not a sedevacantist of any sort. I just recognize that the current Pope is peddling political nonsense and doctrinal error.

A Catholic’s faith does not require daily, weekly, monthly, or even yearly updates from any Pope, not even the current Pope. The sources for the Catholic Faith are Scripture and Tradition, principally the liturgy.

You are still faulting me for not subscribing to the Protestant cartoon version of Catholicism.

[Arthur McGowan]

The chair IS empty of a good Pope. But that’s not what sedevacantism means. Sedevacantism means there is NO Pope.

You are attempting to redefine sedevacantism, deceptively.