CathInfo.com

This is a useless discussion because Lad/DL (and others) refuse to define terms, and ignore the various degrees of such words: 'magisterium', 'heresy', 'infallibility'.  Their use of these terms is so general that they can pick out any quote from 500s years ago and say it applies to the present situation.  Such a waste of time and intellect.

So the Magisterial teachings of the Church, as well as the legitimate Popes and Councils are not eternal? They have time limits? Where does it state that?

None of you can properly answer the objections drawn from Church teachings so you resort to arguing semantics.

On that point, Stubborn defined the Magisterium for you pages back. If you have trouble with these terms, maybe you need to pay attention to what is being quoted. Many of the Papal teachings I've provided state what constitutes heresy. Vatican I provided definitions of infallibility. I shouldn't have to provide the definitions for you.

For the record, I do probably agree with sedevacantism but...not for the reasons that Lad/DL argue.  They seemed to have halted all examination of their theory and have no interest in redefining it nor improving it.  I appreciate their logic, openness and integrity on many other topics, but on this one, they become emotional and defensive.  They protect a viewpoint instead of being open to being wrong (even to a small degree).

I've already stated that if it was proven that these men are legitimate Pontiffs, I would submit. Yet no one has shown how a heretic can hold a valid office in the Church outside of obscuring the papal teachings of Pius XII.

I also don't understand where the claims of emotionalism come from? You could only get that if you're reading into my words. Is it because I, rightly, call out the heresy that Stubborn and co. are preaching? Is heretic and schismatic an emotional slur now? I thought it was part of the ecclesiastical vernacular, but I guess its just subjective, emotional language rather than based in the objective teachings of the Church.

I'm not the one twisting that to mean anything more than it says, unlike you with Pius XII. Even if a heretical cardinal were elected, that election would be null and void because they are heretics. Furthermore, this supposes that the Holy Ghost would ever permit such a thing to occur. Its insane, heretical, and blasphemous.

Again, I showed you the proof, it is what the pope said, all you have is nothing but your own puny ideas.

Again, you're presupposing that Francis et al are legitimate Roman Pontiffs; yet you admit he, and the others, are heretics. I've provided the dogmatic teaching on how the Church views heretics and you keep pointing to some "clause" about heretical cardinals with the insistence that it must mean the Church, somehow, contradicted its previous teachings and now allows for heretics to hold legitimate Catholic office, including the papacy.

I provided the popes' legislation for the conclave - you are the one who refuses to accept what it says, not me. You refuse to accept what it says because it obliterates everything you think about Catholics in the state of the mortal sin of heresy.

The reason you don't see this is because you hold to heretical teachings that have obscured the truth to allow for this contradiction of a heretic holding legitimate office. You've proven your pertinacity, and I have nothing more to say to you on the matter.

What heretical teaching to I hold? Post it or retract it.

All I ask before you stomp off, all I ask is for you to answer the question:
So knowing that only Catholics can use the sacrament of confession, can Catholics guilty of the mortal sin of heresy and want to repent go to confession or not?