Reductio ad absurdam for the sedes! Check and mate, baby!

Wow! These guys take the cake for nuttiest nutters around! 
I thought I fount the “oldest” sedevacantists who claim Pius IX was the last Pope. 
Who knows, maybe we’ll have a group that traces antipopes all the way back to St. Peter himself!

Yes, three generations with no pope at all pretty much dictates that there really is no need for any pope at all. After all, the sedes have presumably kept the faith for the last three generations without one, so it's only further proof that a pope is not necessary for sedevacantists - which must be why they insist they have no pope and that this interregnum can go on indefinitely.

The reason they say there is no time limit and that it can go on indefinitely, is simply because it will, because the sedevacantists have no way of deposing the pope that's in there, or of electing a new one. So for them, they are correct. Get it? It not only can, but will go on indefinitely - for them.

So what good comes from sedevacantism again?

May I ask, what is the point of having your pope Bergoglio? You don’t follow anything he tells you to do. You believe in the church of the superfluous pope!

Ladislaus,
 
In our previous exchanges I always provided your complete text to which I was replying so there would not be the possibility of claiming that I was misquoting you or quoting you out of context.  Now you never do this because you routinely construct arguments that have no referent to what was actually said.  The last thread, (https://www.cathinfo.com/SSPX-RESISTANCE-NEWS/IS-FATHER-RINGROSE-DUMPING-THE-R-R-CROWD/), where a dozen or so of your errors were discussed  and exposed has been read over twenty thousand times since it was closed by Matthew who cleaned up the thread littered with your clumsy posts.  However, I am thankful to you for this; many faithful Catholic have expressed their appreciation for having the errors of sedevacantism/sedeprivationism (S&S) exposed and you are largely responsible for that taking place even if you yourself remain intellectually blighted.
 
Your last post continues in the same vein:
Re: When Does Lent Traditionally End?
« Reply #109 on: Today at 11:10:05 AM »
 

Drew, your entire position is downright idiotic.
 
 Because Drew has decided that the abrogation of fasting is not for the common good, Drew claims that Catholics are still bound by the laws of fasting ... even though the legitimate authority has lifted the requirements.  Even before Vatican II, individuals' confessors could lift the obligation for prudential considerations that made it difficult.

 
All laws require as necessary for validity, (among other things), that they be acts of reason directed toward the common good.  This applies to the making or unmaking of any positive law.  This is a fact.  It is also a fact that there exists no authority in the Church to abrogate a divine and apostolic precept.  Fasting is of divine and apostolic precept and it can no more be eliminate than getting rid of the Ten Commandments.
 
Your "even though" is a meaningless comment.  I have already said in both previous posts that the Church has the authority to regulate fasting as to its duration, intensity, subjects, etc.  For all precepts, both divine and human, admit of mitigating circuмstances.  Would it help if I were to provide links to previous posts where I have already explained this to you? 

I guess then, Drew, you are bound by the much stricter fasting laws of the early Church ... since those were illegitimately loosened up by subsequent Church authority.

 
Another cheap comment that has nothing to do what the argument or what I previously said. 

You do realize, then, that you have decided to make yourself the ultimate lawgiver over and above the authorities of the Church?  And you use your private judgment to determine what is and what is not for the common good.  That's up to your own conscience if you want to observe the prior practice, but no one is bound to do so under pain of sin for disobedience to Church authority.  So the law is objectively no longer in place, whether or not you wish to continue imposing it on yourself.  But it's only self-imposed and not imposed by the authority of the Church.

 
And this coming from a sedevacantisst/sedeprivationist (S&S) that has no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no rule of faith, and no prospects of ever getting them.  You in fact have made yourself your own pope.  Don't try to dump your moral and intellectual garbage on me. 
 
The Novus Ordo Church has effectively eliminated fasting reducing it to two days in the liturgical year while the Church precepts before Vatican II imposed fasting and/or abstinence on over 27% of the liturgical year.  I know, as every faithful Catholic should, that the virtue of Penance has, as a necessary attribute, the requirement of corporal satisfaction.  I my last post I quoted Dom Gueranger who confirms and explains why this is so.  You error when you affirm that the pope can abrogated the divine and apostolic precept of fasting and you insult God when you imply that His divine precept opposes the common good.  I affirm that the precepts of God without exception promote the common good.

Discipline has often over the centuries been relaxed by the Church, and those relaxations are legitimate, whether someone agrees with them or not.

 
So what.  This is nothing that I have not already affirmed as being within the competency of Church authority.

R&R principles hold that Catholics may reject laws that harm their faith (e.g. the universally misapplied "faith is greater than obedience" maxim).  But at no point is the relaxation of Church law being POSITIVELY IMPOSED on any Catholic.  No authority is commanding you NOT to fast.  It's just that the command TO fast has been withdrawn, and therefore obedience is not an issue.

 
Another phony argument.  The purpose of the Church is the salvation of souls.  This is the highest precept (all law is hierarchical) to which all other laws are subject.  Penance being necessary for salvation by divine precept, and fasting being impose by God by divine precept must necessarily by affirmed by the positive law of the Church.  This fact is historically confirmed by the immemorial traditions of the Church in all her rites from the time of the first Pentecost without exception whatsoever.   

If I as a father decide to ban something in my home for a week, and the children do it anyway, they commit a sin of disobedience.  But if the following week I lift the ban, even if the ban was a good thing, then if the children do it, they no longer commit the sin of disobedience by doing the activity.  There's nothing intrinsically evil about eating meat on Fridays during Lent.  So the mortal sin in doing so consists in the disobedience to Church authority, and not in the eating of meat on a Friday per se.  But if the authority decides not to impose it, there's no longer any sin of disobedience.  Period.  End of story.

 
We are not talking about the human law of your family life.  It is said that all analogies limp but yours cannot crawl.  Suppose you as the "father" in "your home" lift the divine prohibition against lying, are your children thereby permitted to lie?

Otherwise, you could claim that the Western Rite practice of allowing fish, butter, and other animal products is inferior to what the Eastern Church does, and everyone in the Roman Rite is therefore obliged under pain of sin to do the same (give up all animal products).  That's just preposterous, and it takes R&R to the absurd logical conclusion of setting up your own private judgment as the ultimate lawgiver.

 
Another bogus comment from you ever widening mouth.  I have made no such "claim" and there is nothing in my posts to suggest otherwise.  The S&S mental gymnastics is nothing but a flight of fantasy.  

Drew, and not the Pope, is now the ultimate lawgiver and authority in the Church.  If you do not realize how utterly preposterous and idiotic that is, then I just feel sorry for you.  You need to admit that you cling to the notion that the old fasting laws are still in effect based on emotional reasons.  You want them to still be in force; consequently, you declare it to be so.

 
S&S have no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no rule of faith, and no prospects of ever getting out from under this rock.  You have ultimately made yourself a law unto yourself.  This paragraph is an excellent example of psychological projection to justify your own moral and intellectual failings by attributing them to others.  I recommend that if anyone has any questions concerning S&S errors that review this thread:
https://www.cathinfo.com/SSPX-RESISTANCE-NEWS/IS-FATHER-RINGROSE-DUMPING-THE-R-R-CROWD/
Every Ladislaus post is fully quoted in every reply.  S&Sers end up in a maze church of their own making buried in heresy and schism and few, very few ever find their way out.  If they do, it generally leads them back to the Novus Ordo because they commit the fundamental error of making the pope their proximate rule of faith and not dogma, therefore, what ever the pope says or does is what they end up saying and doing.
 
Drew

Ah, yes, we really need a Pope that's using the authority of the Magisterium and imposing Universal Discipline that's destroying and otherwise undermining the faith.  We'd be better off without a Pope in that case.  So it's R&R that makes the case for not needing a Pope, in fact, for it being preferable not to have one at all.

May I ask, what is the point of having your pope Bergoglio? You don’t follow anything he tells you to do. You believe in the church of the superfluous pope!

On the contrary, we'd be better off without a Pope than to have a pope leading souls to hell.

The ENTIRE POINT of having the guarantee of a Pope is so that there's always a rule of faith.  It's much preferrable to have that go dormant, and have people relying on prior decisions from that rule than to have an active Pope, actively leading souls to hell that is.  There are quite a few popes who did nothing actively where it came to the faith, who preferred hunting and sleeping with mistresses to governing the Church.  But they did not active doctrinal harm to the Church using their papal authority.

Ah, yes, we really need a Pope that's using the authority of the Magisterium and imposing Universal Discipline that's destroying and otherwise undermining the faith.  We'd be better off without a Pope in that case.  So it's R&R that makes the case for not needing a Pope, in fact, for it being preferable not to have one at all.

Correct.  With R&R the papacy is impotent. 

Nothing is worse than becoming a sedevacantist.

"The greatest crime of all is rejecting the Pope I routinely call a heretic and refuse to obey."

"The greatest crime of all is rejecting the Pope I routinely call a heretic and refuse to obey."

This  x 10

Are you retarded? As others pointed out, for the Sedes, the Pope is the rule of Faith, which is why they sometimes go back to the Novus Ordo. Sedes really do make the same mistake as Novus Ordo Catholics (i.e., exaggeration of Papal authority), only they each go in a different direction. But both believe that everything the Pope commands must be obeyed. You really think the Pope has authority to change the Faith, and that we must obey in such cases? No wonder you reject his authority! You have grossly exaggerated it, and have made a complete mockery of the Papacy. Seriously, the protestants would be proud.

The Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, not Christ Himself! And even if he were, Christ can't contradict Himself or His former teachings. The ability to err or contradict oneself isn't a perfection, but a flaw. Hence the reason God can't create a square circle.