Ah, ok. No problem Cupertino. :)

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Cupertino

It is fantasy to read ABL and deny the plain comprehension of what he said. Also, the quote approved by the Holy Office of the Church. Tissier is his own man and has nothing to do with those facts.

I didn't deny anything. If anything I agreed with you that ABL was sede-friendly. He did come close to taking the sede stance, even though he never did.

Sorry, that was directed to Seraphim, not you SS.

If you can read the quote I supplied from ABL, and still maintain he believed sedevacante was certainly knowable, and believed the faithful could act on such a belief, then I see no further point in discussing the matter with you, as you are clearly unable to comprehend what you read.

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Trinity

Cute Serephim. Perhaps you could explain to me how the doctrine of necessity does not take the decisions out of the pope's hands.  

I believe you will find the saints and doctors arguing the matter quite eloquently in the article titled "on the Doctrine of Necessity" in this forum's library.

When you have finished that, perhaps you can inform us all why they are wrong?

Sorry, what is that quote by ABL that you gave from after 1986??

Oh, I seeeeeeeeeee...

Bishop Tissier was remiss in telling us that ABL's principles changed after Assisi, and from that point forward he thought it was ok for anyone to be a sede.

Sure.

Wrong again.

The Essenes of schism is not failure to submit to the Roman Pontiff.

That is disobedience, unless required by necessity.

Schism, which perfectly reflects your position, is failure to acknowledge the authority of the bishop of Rome to govern the universal Church.

In other words, you are a non-Catholic schismatic.

Not so. The following is a quote from p. 2 of Fr. Ignatius Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics (1948). Fr. Szal lays out the four conditions necessary for schism:

1) One must withdraw directly (expressly) or
indirectly (by means of one's actions) from obedience
to the Roman Pontiff, and separate oneself
from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the
faithful, even though one does not join a separate
schismatical sect

2) one's withdrawal must be made with obstinacy
and rebellion


3) the withdrawal must be made in relation to
those things by which the unity of the Church is
constituted

4) despite this formal disobedience the schismatic
must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true
pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article
of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff

In all honesty (and meaning no disrespect), does this not describe the SSPX position?

I am sympathetic to the SSPX and used to be one of their adherents, but their position is simply erroneous.

Quote from: Seraphim

And the only way you can maintain your "contradictory" party line is by ignoring the doctrine of necessity (a cause excusing from obedience from superiors).

Being a bit dishonest with ourselves, aren't we?

Sir, before accusing me of dishonesty, please try to understand the issues a bit better. You are confusing immoral papal commands ("Go steal a golden chalice for me!") from authoritative exercises of the (putative) papal office regarding doctrine, morals, discipline, and government (canon law).

There is no contradiction within sedevacantism.

The ignorance manifest in your response only demonstrates your failure to read the article on necessity, leaving you willfully ignorant in the matter.

Had you read it, you would not have made such a foolish comment purporting to limit the scope of the excusing cause of necessity against juridical and doctrinal acts of the pope.

According to your rationale, St Athanasius would have either been forced to back Pope Liberius in his signing of the docuмent favoring Arianism, or declared the See of Rome vacant.

You might notice he did neither.

But I have yet to hear of him being accused of embracing a "contradictory" opinion.

Hmmm

Still waiting.   :ready-to-eat:

Don't be dense.  I did ask you to explain how the doctrine of necessity doesn't take the decisions out of  the pope's hands.

The ignorance manifest in your response only demonstrates your failure to read the article on necessity, leaving you willfully ignorant in the matter.

I'm sorry, but I don't know which article you are referring to. Please give me the link or the post number where it's linked. I would be more than happy to interact with it. Who wrote it, and when?

Had you read it, you would not have made such a foolish comment purporting to limit the scope of the excusing cause of necessity against juridical and doctrinal acts of the pope.

We'll see just how "foolish" that was.

According to your rationale, St Athanasius would have either been forced to back Pope Liberius in his signing of the docuмent favoring Arianism, or declared the See of Rome vacant.

I prefer to take St. Robert Bellarmine's position on that:

"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic."

(http://www.sedevacantist.com/bellarm.htm)