An Argument about the Papacy that Matters

Do some popes lead us down
the "primrose path of dalliance?"

The debate between those holding the sedevacantist position and those who've adopted the refuse and resist position about the pope matters, if only as a lesson in theological argument. But there's a way to argue with grace and courtesy that is often lacking in discussions of this stripe. 

I've often felt beat over the head by sedevacantists who cannot possibly think their position may be in error. So they browbeat those who will not jump on their "The pope is a heretic so he can't be pope!" bandwagon. Are they correct? I don't know! 

The other side is often just as acrimonious in defending their belief. Who can see the issue for all the dust stirred up by the shouting?