No, I don’t see it the way you do. Put yourself in my position. I look at these “popes” as usurpers, as evil people who have deliberately infiltrated the Church and are trying to destroy Her from within. I see them as evil people either willingly or unwittingly trying to bring souls to Hell.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care one iota what you say about them, I just believe that it’s extremely sinful to speak disparagingly about any *true* pope. If I believed that these usurpers were true popes, even if I disagreed with what they were doing, I would refrain from speaking ill of them. Again, it seems that Stubborn follows that vein of thinking.

I see them the same way, probably most non-sede's also see them the same way. Again, so what?

You keep side tracking - my opinion means zero - you have, can and always will trumpet that fact, who cares? What you fail to do is answer the simple questions one would think a sincere sede would be eager to answer.

I criticize the theologians when they err - and the last few centuries some of them have erred a lot.

And still, after all your side tracking and ad hominems, no one has answered which Divine Law is interpreted to mean a heretic cannot be pope or elected as pope....or what purpose sedeism serves and how it profits them unto salvation.

Yet here you sit saying that I don't know the fundamentals. Check the mirror.

K

During Wojtyla's funeral, there was a lot of wind, and the candles were extinguished by the wind, and there was an open Book of the Gospels (symbolizing the Book of Life) on his casket.  It was literally blown shut by the wind.

During the solemn Medieval excommunication rite, a candle was extinguished and a Book of the Gospels was shut to signify the dying of grace and the exclusion of the excommunicated from the Book of Life.

You can see the book being buffeted about in the wind.  Look at, 10:58-11:05 where it's still open but being blown around by the wind.  At 18:07-18:10 you can see the pages being violently blown around, then again at about 19:34-19:37.  By 24:37 - 24:47, you can see that it was shut by the wind, again recalling that the open book symbolizes the Book of Life.

Muy interesante!!

How does Bugnolo just pop off and start making such assertions?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Francis resign and have a conclave (but be careful what you wish for, two words, Luis Tagle), but Bugnolo to make such a bald-faced assertion that it is going to happen, is just talking b*****ks.

Are you kidding? I *hope* they “elect” him. The more insanely modernist the better. Just as Bergoglio was the catalyst for some to see the NO church for what it is, maybe Mr. Tagle will wake up a few more confused souls. Unfortunately, I can’t get my hopes up since I expected a much larger exodus from Bergoglio’s “reign”.

The point I was making is that if you don’t know such a fundamental function of the Catholic Church, then you really shouldn’t be expressing *your opinions* publicly and criticizing pre VII theologians. You should be following the theologians and learning from them.

It's permitted to disagree with pre-V2 theologians.  Unfortunately, Father Cekada exaggerated the status of theologians.  But many were contaminated with Modernism going back 100-200 years.  Msgr. Fenton has a good, balanced view on the role of theologians.  But to dismiss all "19th and 20th century theologians" with a wave of the hand is pretty arrogant.  If one disagrees, one should have the reasons (syllogisms) ready to back up said disagreement.

So, as with most issues, the truth, as St. Augustine taught, is usually in between (the extremes).

We respect the theologians, learn from them, but if we have a serious disagreement to disagree, we are entitled to.  They're not the Ecclesia Docens or some extension thereof (as Father Cekada holds), but more a reflection perhaps of the Ecclesia Credens.

Absolutely, of course you can disagree with the theologians, but Stubborn stubbornly disregards almost all that they say.

Right, you can't just wave them off because "19th and 20th century theologians".  On MOST subjects, they're probably highly reliable ... even if they were contaminated on other subjects, particularly EENS and leaning toward religious indifferentism.  Religious indifferentism had to be condemned all the way back in time of Pope Pius IX, which means it was become fairly widespread by his day.  But on most other subjects, they're generally very reliable.

There are some other issues I disagree with some of them about, such as about the notion that Univeresal Acceptance can convalidate an illegitimate election.  In fact, I disagree with Universal Acceptance in general, because it would render cuм Ex Apostolatus moot, and so cuм ex strongly suggests that Pope Paul IV didn't beleive in UA.  There's SOME place for it, but I don't think it's properly articulated.  So, for instance, if Father Cekada's Aunt Helen had woke up one morning and decided that Pius XII wasn't the true pope, would she have had the right to become an SV?  NOBODY doubted Pius XII.  At the same time, if one believes that a Pope can BECOME a heretic as a private person (which is permitted), SOMEBODY has to be the first to call it out (despite there otherwise being UA).  But then the awareness would progress from an individual doubt to more widespread doubt to ultimately universal rejection of the heretic pope.  It would be a process.  But according to UA, the first person to doubt it would be a heretic.  I think there's something wrong with how that theory is understood.

But, apart from that, I think that 90% of work of pre-V2 theologians is reliable.  Now, there are MANY issues on which there are different groups of theologians disagree, from Thomists vs. Molinists, or we had the "5 Opinions" about the heretical pope, etc.  Those are fair game until the Church condemnes them.

Absolutely, of course you can disagree with the theologians, but Stubborn stubbornly disregards almost all that they say.

Feel free to provide some examples.