ABL was a sede-doubtist ... just like myself.

Is that how +ABL described himself? I don't recall that he did.

In +ABL's last book, in 1986 (I think it was his last), which was called "Open Letter to Confused Catholics," he wrote this in the last chapter on page 175:

"I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within that Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition."

+ABL wrote that he had not ceased to repeat that he will not separate himself from the Pope. Is that what sede-doubtists' believe? Though, of course, sede-doubtism is probably a recently made-up term, and may not have been in existence when +ABL was alive.

Is that how +ABL described himself? I don't recall that he did.

In +ABL's last book, in 1986 (I think it was his last), which was called "Open Letter to Confused Catholics," he wrote this in the last chapter on page 175:

"I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within that Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition."

+ABL wrote that he had not ceased to repeat that he will not separate himself from the Pope. Is that what sede-doubtists' believe? Though, of course, sede-doubtism is probably a recently made-up term, and may not have been in existence when +ABL was alive.

If you look at all of what +Lefebvre wrote, he's a sededoubtists and not a sedeplenist.  I'll explain more tomorrow.

Sedevacantists say one thing....Catholics say another. I follow ABL's thinking on the matter.

This site calls itself catholic-hierarchy.org and  it says that ABL left the Church.

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/blefebvre.html

So Bergoglio's predecessors subjectivized faith and doctrine.  Now Bergoglio finishes the job by subjectivizing morality.

Exactly.

From cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV, 1559...

In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation.

And yet, cuм Ex assumes a trial.
cuм Ex...

"(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;"

So, an HEARING is presumed in cuм Ex. That means, this declaration is only a guideline for determining within an hearing that someone proven guilty of heresy, Pope included, must be treated as written. But an hearing is presumed.

Bellarmine’s thinking regarding this matter is perfectly consistent with the mind of the Church, as we see expressed in Canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. In response to the schism of Photius, the Council attached the grave penalty of excommunication to any layman or monk who, in the future, separated himself from his patriarch (the Pope is Patriarch of the West) before a careful inquiry and judgment by a synod.

“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault’. And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and UNIVERSAL SYNOD justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e. excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled”.

I didn't say that I take +ABL's view of whether or not sedes are Catholic or not, or out of the Church. That in itself wasn't the point of the argument.

And I never said that sedes are going to hell. They are just nuts, that's all. And the dogmatic ones aren't Catholic.  

I was wondering where he came up with that considering what you actually said.  

And yet, cuм Ex assumes a trial.
cuм Ex...

"(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;"

So, an HEARING is presumed in cuм Ex. That means, this declaration is only a guideline for determining within an hearing that someone proven guilty of heresy, Pope included, must be treated as written. But an hearing is presumed.

Bellarmine’s thinking regarding this matter is perfectly consistent with the mind of the Church, as we see expressed in Canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. In response to the schism of Photius, the Council attached the grave penalty of excommunication to any layman or monk who, in the future, separated himself from his patriarch (the Pope is Patriarch of the West) before a careful inquiry and judgment by a synod.

“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault’. And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and UNIVERSAL SYNOD justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e. excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled”.

The above is my understanding as well. There needs to be a determination of whether or not heresy or deviation from the Faith exists. That determination isn't made by laymen, but rather by a synod or council (a body made up of members of the hierarchy). The accused must then has chance to recant and repent of his heresy, after the determination is made that heresy exists.

Meg,

Yesterday you made this comment... this is why you are being questioned.

You are saying sedevacantists are not Catholics...  non-Catholics are not saved... or are they?

What was that comment specifically about?