[Ladislaus]

You know very well that it's not just a questionable election. You posit that the most senior men of the Roman hierarchy were actually the enemies of the Church.

So what?  As long as some of them were not, how is that a defection?  There were enough who infiltrated the Church that their nefarious activities illegitimized the election of Roncalli.

[Ladislaus]

Wait, isn’t that the r&r position?

True that.

[Ladislaus]

The some that were not have now passed on. The takeover is now complete. There is now no legitimate Roman Church. No Mother Church. The barque of Peter has smashed against the rocks and sunk.

So, now, you're claiming that the Roman Church has defected, that there isn't a Catholic left among them.

[Neil Obstat]

The word 'abrogate' doesn't need to be used you nincompoop.
  

.
Let me get this straight. The word "abrogate" doesn't need to be used, but the word "nincompoop" does, correct?
.

[Merry]

Answer from Lastdays  -----  A Catholic handles future decisions the same way he handles current ones. Anyone claiming to be Pope who professes heresy to the Church and/or attempts to bind Catholics to heresy is no Pope at all. It is up to each Catholic to know his faith.

And so we see how schisms come about.

[Incredulous]

Isn't that your conclusion? There is no Roman Church...right? It has been infiltrated..no?

The Church is still there, but hidden or "eclipsed", per Our Lady of LaSalette.

[Merry]

Earlier in this thread, I (Merry) asked - Not to interrupt, but again, what does Canon 1556 mean: Prima sedes a nemine judicatur - "The first chair is judged by no one."

And LASTDAYS replied - "This was already answered. You are not paying attention. Catholics do not judge the first chair. They merely recognize and pronounce that a notorious heretic is pretending to occupy it."


Comment - "They merely recognize and pronounce..." -- well is that not judging?  Sedevacantists ignore if not despise Canon 1556.  They are above and beyond the Law.  Heedless.   


Later on in this thread I then put forth the following scenario ---

Ok, from another angle.  If, just supposing, the true Church, the Modernist/Novus Ordo-free Church of the future, makes a decision, hands down a mandate concerning the Vatican II Popes and this decision is not what you sedevacantists would like to hear - let's say the decision is not what you would agree with - would you submit to it nevertheless?  Again, the True Church decides concerning the Modernist age and its Popes, and this is not a decision that makes the sedevacantists happy - would you nevertheless submit to the authority of this Church and Her decision regarding Her evaluation of the Vat. II Popes?  Leave open whatever the decision might end up being - just say sedevacantists don't like it.  Would you submit?

Or will it be "non serviam"?  ----------------


To this LASTDAYS replied - "A Catholic handles future decisions the same way he handles current ones.  anyone claiming to be pope who professes heresy to the church and/or attempts to bind Catholics to heresy is no Pope at all.  It is up to each Catholic to know his faith." 


Comment -  A believing, submissive Catholic would say that when the True, "Modernist-free" Church of the future eventually hands down a decision on the Popes and their acts and about the Vatican II Council of the modernist age - such a Catholic would accept this decision of the Church as coming from Christ.  But the sedevacantist says that if the Church does not say what the sedevacantists want the Church to say, then "they will not believe" - they will not submit.

What are you going to do with such a mindset - with such a disposition?  Earlier above, I could not get the post to work correctly with what I tried to say, and so I have attempted it again here and am hoping it will post correctly.  The bottom line is, such a stubborn "non serviam" attitude as is shown by sedevacantists, is what makes for schisms and heresies - it is how blinded people cut themselves off from the Church.   

[Jaynek]

You need to take the plank out of your own eye. Do you obey all the declarations of Vatican II? If not then why the "non serviam" attitude? Why are you making a schism?

It is actually pretty easy to follow Vatican II. It says itself that conscience is a higher guide.  So when you are ignoring it you are following it.  

[Ladislaus]

It is actually pretty easy to follow Vatican II. It says itself that conscience is a higher guide.  So when you are ignoring it you are following it.  

touché

[Ladislaus]

It is actually pretty easy to follow Vatican II. It says itself that conscience is a higher guide.  So when you are ignoring it you are following it.  

I would make a similar argument to some Jesuits who enjoyed adlibbing their own "Eucharistic Prayer" but were hostile to the Tridentine Mass.  So what's wrong if some priest adlibbed a Canon that happened to follow the Tridentine Canon word for word?  I could never get a response.

[Jaynek]

To say that a person's own conscience trumps the declarations of a General Catholic Council in regards to faith and morals is also heresy. As I said, Vatican II is not Catholic in any way. You cannot wiggle out of it.

The smiley was meant to show that I intended a giggle rather than a wiggle.  Rest assured that I do not consider my comment to be a serious defense of Vatican II.

It might, however, be useful to keep in mind if one encounters the sort of person who insists that traditionalists, in order to be part of the Church, must proclaim our loyalty to Vatican II.  I am guessing that there are not many of that sort on this forum.

[Ladislaus]

NOT.

Her statement was clearly satire.