nobody's refusing subjections to the Supreme Pontiff, only to an Antipope.  Of course, formally, you are the one in schism for claiming that it's permitted to refuse subjection to the Supreme Pontiff and to communicate with members of the Church (i.e. by refusing to attend the NOM).  So once again you condemn yourself from your own mouth.

Besides that, the SVs have quoted myriad times from Canonist who state that one is not a schismatic if one refuses subjection based on well-founded doubts regarding their legitimacy.

Ironic, given that Stubborn has been repeatedly quoting Pope Boniface VIII's dogmatic pronouncement on this point:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “Furthermore, we declare, say, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

How exactly is one subjecting themselves to the Roman Pontiff if they deny every doctrine he teaches to the universal church? If one were subject to Bergoglio as the Roman Pontiff, then they would have no reason to avoid the New Mass, in fact, given Traditionis Custodes, they would be defying his authority and are obligated to go to the New Mass.

If you truly believe that Jorge Bergoglio is a legitimate Roman Pontiff, then act like it and subject yourself to his authority like a good "Catholic." The R&R position fundamentally denies the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I:

Session 4, Chapter 3.9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:

let him be anathema.

nobody's refusing subjections to the Supreme Pontiff, only to an Antipope.  Of course, formally, you are the one in schism for claiming that it's permitted to refuse subjection to the Supreme Pontiff and to communicate with members of the Church (i.e. by refusing to attend the NOM).  So once again you condemn yourself from your own mouth.

Besides that, the SVs have quoted myriad times from Canonist who state that one is not a schismatic if one refuses subjection based on well-founded doubts regarding their legitimacy.

Oh brother

Ironic, given that Stubborn has been repeatedly quoting Pope Boniface VIII's dogmatic pronouncement on this point:

How exactly is one subjecting themselves to the Roman Pontiff if they deny every doctrine he teaches to the universal church? If one were subject to Bergoglio as the Roman Pontiff, then they would have no reason to avoid the New Mass, in fact, given Traditionis Custodes, they would be defying his authority and are obligated to go to the New Mass.

If you truly believe that Jorge Bergoglio is a legitimate Roman Pontiff, then act like it and subject yourself to his authority like a good "Catholic." The R&R position fundamentally denies the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I:

I wouldn't spent too much time arguing with Stubborn.  I've done it in the past but learned from my mistake.  He makes principles up out of thin air and dismisses all theological texts cited as the entirely unreliable theologians of the (at first just 20th -- and then later 19th and 20th) centuries.  He contradicts himself on a regular basis, redefines well-known theological terms to suit his needs, and has absolutely no comprehension of distinctions.  It's an exercise in futility.  I've stopped debating him.  It's pointless.  Stubborn (as is the logical consequence of R&R) has become his own rule of faith and has invented his own religion.

I wouldn't spent too much time arguing with Stubborn.  I've done it in the past but learned from my mistake.  He makes principles up out of thin air and dismisses all theological texts cited as the entirely unreliable theologians of the (at first just 20th -- and then later 19th and 20th) centuries.  He contradicts himself on a regular basis, redefines well-known theological terms to suit his needs, and has absolutely no comprehension of distinctions.  It's an exercise in futility.  I've stopped debating him.  It's pointless.  Stubborn (as is the logical consequence of R&R) has become his own rule of faith and has invented his own religion.

Hot air ^^
Yes, the highest principle in the Church to sedes necessarily registers as being made up. Aren't you special!

I guess we'll never know where the phrase: "Excommunicated from the Church" comes from.

Your "highest principle," namely that Tradition is the proximate rule and interpreter of faith (something also promoted by that Drew character) is nothing more than a slight variation of Protestantism, the difference being that the Prots only have one source of Revelation (Scripture) and the Trad-Prots have two (Scripture and Tradition).

As with Scripture, the issue with Tradition is its interpretation and application, and there's only one authority permitted to interpret Tradition, the living Magisterium.  As St. Thomas said, by rejecting the Magisterium as the proximate rule for interpretation, you effectively make yourself the rule.  You replace the Magisterium with your own private judgment.  If Stubborn decides something is Traditional, then it's Traditional.  This effectively makes you your own doctrinal authority.

Sede reasoning^^

Go ahead and be obedient to man regardless of our requirement of obedience to God and see how that works out for you.

Not sure what it is you don't get, apparently this contradicts your brand of sedeism, but the Church's Magisterium is not the pope. 

You sound more like a Prot with every post.

No, you don't even believe that, you're just frustrated running in circles within your conundrum.

Not only do I believe that, I've demonstrated quite clearly why that's the case.

No, you don't believe it, the only thing you've clearly demonstrated is that you're stuck in a conundrum.

As with Scripture, the issue with Tradition is its interpretation and application,

And we have over 1,900 years where Tradition has ALREADY been interpreted (by papal authority) and applied (by papal authority).  When Stubborn says that "Tradition is the rule of Faith" he means PREVIOUS MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITATIVE TEACHINGS.  In other words, there are 7 sacraments...this is known from Tradition because Scripture does not tell us the #.  It's been confirmed from the earliest of Apostolic times that such is the case, and confirmed multiple times by many popes.  Thus, this is infallible Tradition.


Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?

and there's only one authority permitted to interpret Tradition, the living Magisterium. 

And such prior magisteriums of Church history have ALREADY decided the VAST majority of questions of our Faith.  These previously decided truths become part of "Tradition".

As St. Thomas said, by rejecting the Magisterium as the proximate rule for interpretation, you effectively make yourself the rule. 

That's not Stubborn's argument. 

You replace the Magisterium with your own private judgment.  If Stubborn decides something is Traditional, then it's Traditional.  This effectively makes you your own doctrinal authority.

How many times has EENS been defined?  3x?  Even after the first time, this doctrinal statement becomes part of "Tradition" because EENS has roots in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.  When the Church magisterially defines it again, as a revealed truth, as part of Scripture/Tradition then it becomes (to use a general term) "Traditional" because it is "of Tradition".


Tradition/Traditional simply means "has always been held" or "always taught".  When the Church defined EENS, She is saying this is a Divine Truth, which is from Apostolic times (or further back, as part of Scripture).  Thus, it is correct to say EENS is part of Tradition.  Thus, it can never be changed.  Thus, we can point to something novel and decide if it's right or wrong, because EENS has already been decided and is fixed.