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.

Good heavens professor. 99% of the time you speak as if you are the magisterium, which actually is immune from error.

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.

Lad,

I can't imagine you writing these things with a straight face. This must be a real riot for you.

I don't mean to give you a hard time - I know I jump on you a bit - but when you write something like this while rejecting BOD, any form of BOD, based on a reading of Trent that you can't quote a single theologian in the centuries since Trent who agrees with you on (namely, that the "or" of Session VI, Chapter 4 doesn't indicate one can be justified in voto without receipt of the sacrament), not even Father Feeney . . .

If you read my post #307, I answered your question: “Peter was commissioned to confirm his brethren in the Faith. Obviously that would be incompatible and contradictory to his mission if he were a heretic teaching false doctrine.” Even DR accepted my reasoning.

This is such an utterly fundamental Catholic teaching that even my 11 year old understands how a nonbeliever cannot possibly teach or confirm his brethren. This is why you thought I was evading your question when in fact I was mystified how anyone, who purportedly professes Catholicism, could possibly not see it.


Now, in order for my point to sink in, do you understand why I asked you: ‘is it Divine Law that a woman cannot be a priest’? Can you answer that question?

Stubborn....

1.  The 1st and 3rd Commandment if you're only going by that but your premise is also incorrect in that it seems you are wanting to take each commandment at it's bare minimum and seem to think that only the 10 Commandments are binding on consciences but not Dogma.  You realize that each Commandment covers a wide variety of sins correct?  Do you also realize that The Church and Her Teachings are binding on consciences as well?

2.  So one is not in schism by adhering to a sect that isn't Catholic. 

3.  Schismatics go to Hell when they die.

I don't know why Sede's don't answer these for you but there you go. 

Nobody's ignored anything.  You ignore (mentally filter out) the answers you're given and then claim that nobody's answer your question.  I wrote a post already about your "1)".  Your not liking my answer doesn't equate to "ignoring" the question.  If you don't like my answer, refute it.  But your claiming that we ignored it means that you either didn't see my post or ignored it.

As for 2) and 3), I don't see where they've even been brought up on this thread, but they've been clearly answered on other threads.