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. This is why the theologians that Father Cekada quoted didn’t feel the need to elaborate what Divine Law was in question.


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?

You're mystified because your answer is only your idea of Divine Law - God did not tell St. Peter if he ever became a heretic he would no longer be head of the Church - if He would have, THAT would be Divine Law. He commissioned St. Peter and all the Apostles to teach the faith, and even Judas was still an Apostle when he hung himself. Or do you actually think that he lost his office when he betrayed Our Lord, or lost it by committing ѕυιcιdє?

And for crying out loud already, no, a woman cannot be a priest is not Divine Law, it is against the law of the Church  following the teaching of St. Paul who condemns the idea when he says "it is a shame for women to speak in the Church", he does not say it is against Divine Law for women to speak in the Church.

Now we are getting somewhere. So if it’s not Divine Law and only Church Law, a pope can allow a woman to be ordained, correct?

Well gee 2V, who'd a ever guessed? All you are saying has been repeated ad infinitum on CI alone. How about taking a stab at answering:
1) What advantage over R&R does sedeism have?
2) What purpose does sedism serve?
3) How does sedeism profit souls unto salvation?

Example answers:
1) It makes me superior to R&R
2) It serves to disunify the faithful
3) It aids my salvation because what is said in the above quote is only known through sedeism.

I want to know why a sede is a sede. If you were to say because there is no pope, then all that reason does is cause disunity.

Do you understand that there is a difference between Church Law and Divine Law? Do you understand that Church Law is changeable and Divine Law is not? So, if Fr. Cekada and the theologians that he quoted said it was Church Law instead of Divine Law, would that change anything for you? You’re really confused, aren’t you? I think you’re starting to realize that the positions that maintain your house of cards are being exposed as falsehoods.

I understand Divine Law is a law given to us by God Himself. You SHOULD also understand it as I do BECAUSE that's what it is.  I understand that Church Law is a law established by the Church, by popes, canon law and some are universal laws, some are not. Some are changeable and can be abrogated, some cannot. And that all Church laws include and are subservient with Divine Law, and no Church law contradict Divine Law. It's not complicated.

 Fr. Cekada sites, as far as I can find, an author "Maroto" who wrote " Institutiones I.C. 2:784" in 1921 as his reference stating “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself…" This is typical Fr. Cekada, using some obscure writer who, far as I can find, is not even a priest let a lone a theologian, certainly NOT any authority within the Church. The only reason he cited him was because what he wrote, fit his agenda.

This amounts to Fr. Cekada finding some nobody somewhere who wrote down error - and he ran with it to spread his opinion. And you run with it, and sedes all over the place run with it while evading the question and side tracking, not caring one iota about the truth of the matter while claiming the truth is what matters. Sadly, this is nothing new.

No need to continue evading and side tracking, we've hit the usual, and sadly expected, impasse. 

My point was that you accused me of repeating something that was already discussed on the forum ad infinitum when you are just as guilty of repeating things through the years.  Most of us long-timers are just as guilty.  I mean really, what's new under the sun?

I think for those of us who have debated with you through the years, we recognize that answering your questions typically doesn't end there.  Regardless of how we answer (and I actually thought that QvD *did* answer), you will continue to be anti-sede and claim that we are the source of disunity.  Why would any of us want to bother with/subject ourselves to that?  Years ago, I may have done so, but I have learned who is really looking to debate with me on this topic and who is not.