[2Vermont]

Here's a couple of more gems from Meg:

The sedes can heckle Catholics from the sidelines all they want, but they have left the Church. They have no right to an opinion.

Sedevacantists say one thing....Catholics say another. I follow ABL's thinking on the matter. 

[MyrnaM]

.
He didn't actually say that he reads them (present tense). He has read them in the past but they've been consistently the same for years so why would they have changed suddenly? If Traditio had suddenly changed all the forums would be talking about it. And Nov.Ord.Wat. is so locked into granny low, there's no WAY they're going to change. Hey, they're still using Windows 3.1!!
..
You should read Mystery of Iniquity. It's author sought to answer your question, "...how the Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, the breaking of the First Commandment." Perhaps you'd like to know what he found.
.
After you're done, perhaps you'd like to know the next phase.
.

It would have been nice if Matthew answered for himself, and yes I can understand taking a look at a site one or two times before one decides it is not for them.  I looked at the Novus Ordor Watch but it is disorganized and not a pleasing layout I prefer not to go there, it's been years and years since I visited Traditio. 
Why not explain how the Vicar of Christ can continue to teach his flock to break the First Commandment from the book by another armchair today theologian, my favorite choice of reading are the Papal Encyclicals.  Because they are so crystal clear while the conciliar writings are so ambiguous as the armchair theologians you request we read.  I have taken that stance after looking at todays theologians and their opinions which constantly clash with each other, so as I say I'll stick to the encyclicals.  

This is another reason why I love C.M.R.I. their sermons are not their novel theories created for popularity, they speak from the pulpit about the teachings of the Church, basic doctrine without the novelties.  
  
   

[MyrnaM]

Its not that we're all Sede. It really comes down to the fact that in the practical order most here don't consider the current occupant in Rome as a spiritual father in the faith.
Effectively we are independent of Rome's authority.

That's because he is not a spiritual father of any kind unless you want to say spiritual darkness.  Which is a pretty good definition of what the sedevacantist believe also.  
The difference is a sedevacantist relies on Rome's authority which is why our priest constantly teach what the True Pope have taught the flock in happier days.  

[MyrnaM]

Don't get confused Myrna. We can all break God's laws...that's called sinning.  

Yes, isn't that so true, but for a Vicar of Christ to lead the faithful into a practice of interfaith with pagans is going a little too far, it isn't personal sin anymore.  
You have some good points about Meg breaking forum rules here, but  Sunday is her day off, so maybe she will see your replies on Monday.  Even the shills get a day or two off.

[Matthew]

I don't read Novus Ordo Watch nor Traditio, and I am surprised that you do!

If ever I stand before God and find the conciliar popes were indeed valid, I know God's mercy would never hold me accountable for that because He knows my loyalty to the Papacy was never in question.  Because it wasn't.  I do fear for those who have made excuses for these enemies of God and should have known better, no one has ever explained to me here or anywhere how the Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, the breaking of the First Commandment.
  
Can you, Matthew?

There have been valid popes who have sinned in the past. That is a fact. At any rate, it's beside the point. Only a future Council can depose a Pope, or declare that he was not Pope. That is not the job of laymen in their armchairs.

I don't patronize or visit those sites on purpose, but I have read enough of their content over the years to be well acquainted with their particular stench.  Keep in mind, we've had a lot of people post material from those sites on CathInfo over the past 11 years.

I know many bad rock and roll songs, but I've never spent a nickel on their CDs, concerts, etc. You don't have a choice what they play at work, school, in stores, etc.

[MyrnaM]

As I said sinning is personal but leading others into the pit is a "little" different.

I must apologize to Novus Ordo Watch when I stated they have a bad layout, I meant the confusing layout was my opinion about Daily Catholic, of which I read neither.  

The Church has already condemned the conciliarists:

Second Council of Lyons – 1274
Council Fathers - May 7, 1274   on election and the power of the elected person 
When a disordered passion enslaves the will or some pledge compels it to one way of acting, the election is null from lack of freedom, we implore the Cardinals through the tender mercy of our God’, and we call them to witness through the sprinkling of his precious blood, that they consider very carefully what they are about to do. They are electing the vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of Peter, the ruler of the universal church, the guide of the Lord’s flock. They are to lay aside all the disorder of private affection, to be free from any bargain, agreement or pledge; they are not to consider any promise or understanding, to have no regard for their mutual advantage or that of their friends. They are not to look after their own interests or their individual convenience. Without any constraint on their judgment other than God, they are to seek purely and freely the public good, with the election alone in mind. They are to use every endeavor and care that is possible. Their one aim is to provide, by their service and speedily, what is so useful and necessary for the whole world, a fitting spouse for the church. Those who act otherwise are subject to the divine retribution, their fault never to be pardoned except after severe penance. We invalidate all bargains, agreements, pledges, promises and understandings, whether confirmed by oath or any other bond; we nullify all these and decree that such have no force whatever. No one is constrained in any way to observe them, nor anyone to fear that by transgressing them he is breaking faith. Rather he deserves praise, for even human law testifies that such transgressions are more acceptable to God than the keeping of the oath.

[Cantarella]

In all fairness, people can and do change their views on the crisis over time. I know I have and from a rabid anti - sedevacantist position I used to have, now I consider Des Laurier's Thesis of Cassiacuм (sedeprivationism) the most proximate to the truth.

Although after much discernment, I consider the SSPX position the most erroneous of them all, I do not consider these R & R Catholics (or Absolute Sedevacantists) schismatics at all. Everyone is just doing the best they can in this sinking boat. I think that approach of red lighting everyone among us traditionalists is divisive and ultimately not conductive to resolution, because a house divided against itself cannot stand.

[Meg]

As I said sinning is personal but leading others into the pit is a "little" different.

I must apologize to Novus Ordo Watch when I stated they have a bad layout, I meant the confusing layout was my opinion about Daily Catholic, of which I read neither.  

The Church has already condemned the conciliarists:

Second Council of Lyons – 1274
Council Fathers - May 7, 1274   on election and the power of the elected person
When a disordered passion enslaves the will or some pledge compels it to one way of acting, the election is null from lack of freedom, we implore the Cardinals through the tender mercy of our God’, and we call them to witness through the sprinkling of his precious blood, that they consider very carefully what they are about to do. They are electing the vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of Peter, the ruler of the universal church, the guide of the Lord’s flock. They are to lay aside all the disorder of private affection, to be free from any bargain, agreement or pledge; they are not to consider any promise or understanding, to have no regard for their mutual advantage or that of their friends. They are not to look after their own interests or their individual convenience. Without any constraint on their judgment other than God, they are to seek purely and freely the public good, with the election alone in mind. They are to use every endeavor and care that is possible. Their one aim is to provide, by their service and speedily, what is so useful and necessary for the whole world, a fitting spouse for the church. Those who act otherwise are subject to the divine retribution, their fault never to be pardoned except after severe penance. We invalidate all bargains, agreements, pledges, promises and understandings, whether confirmed by oath or any other bond; we nullify all these and decree that such have no force whatever. No one is constrained in any way to observe them, nor anyone to fear that by transgressing them he is breaking faith. Rather he deserves praise, for even human law testifies that such transgressions are more acceptable to God than the keeping of the oath.

In the same section of the Council of Lyons that you quoted, but a little further on, is the decree which states how one is to raise difficulties against the form of an election, or against the persons of the electors, or against the elected himself. There is not a provision which says that a Catholic may proclaim all on his own that there are impediments to an election. There is a procedure. Which makes good Catholic sense. The passage uses the terms "Ecclesiastical elections," which I assume, includes the Pope. Here is the passage:
--------

2. On the election and the power of the elected person

3[10]

"That we may, as far as possible, close the way to evil practices in ecclesiastical elections, postulations and provisions, and that churches may not have long and dangerous vacancies or the provision of parsonages, dignities or other ecclesiastical benefices be delayed, we make this perpetual degree.

When opponents to elections, postulations, or provisions raise difficulties against the form of the election, postulation, or provision, or against the person of the electors or of the elected or of him for whom the provision was to be made or has been made, and for these reasons make an appeal, the appellants are to express in public docuмent or letter of appeal every individual objection they intend to make against the form or persons. They shall do this in the presence of qualified persons or person bearing witness to the truth on the above points, and they shall personally swear that they believe what they say to be truth and can prove it. If this is not done, both the objectors and, during, the time of appeal or afterwards, their adherents are to know that the power of objecting anything not expressed in these letters or docuмents is forbidden to them, unless there is some new evidence or there is some means of proving the former objections or some facts of the past have newly come to knowledge of the objectors, facts of which at the time of the appeal the appellants probably could have been, and in fact were ignorant."
-------

The above quote seems to point to the idea that there is a procedure for dealing with the contesting of an ecclesiastical election, which would necessarily include believing that the seat is vacant, though this is not specified.

[Centroamerica]

In the same section of the Council of Lyons that you quoted, but a little further on, is the decree which states how one is to raise difficulties against the form of an election, or against the persons of the electors, or against the elected himself. There is not a provision which says that a Catholic may proclaim all on his own that there are impediments to an election. There is a procedure. Which makes good Catholic sense. The passage uses the terms "Ecclesiastical elections," which I assume, includes the Pope. 

Ecclesiastical Law is Human Law and can change. Impediments to an election are one thing.
I am no expert and have no public opinion on the Crisis.

But since we are talking about Sensus fidei or good Catholic sense, please allow me to point out that it would definitely be Divine Law that in order to be a member of the Catholic Church, one must have the Catholic Faith. It could easily be proven that Bergoglio is not a visible member of the Church. I believe that it is easy to prove that Bergoglio is a formal and manifest heretic. Being so, he would definitely not be a member of the Catholic Church.

So my question to you is: Are you prepared to state that a non-Catholic apostate or infidel openly aggressive to the Faith and who is not a member of the Church is your spiritual leader, even if at the peril of your immortal soul?

Good Catholic sense would seem to scream no. Sensus fidei

[Meg]

Ecclesiastical Law is Human Law and can change. Impediments to an election are one thing.
I am no expert and have no public opinion on the Crisis.

But since we are talking about Sensus fidei or good Catholic sense, please allow me to point out that it would definitely be Divine Law that in order to be a member of the Catholic Church, one must have the Catholic Faith. It could easily be proven that Bergoglio is not a visible member of the Church. I believe that it is easy to prove that Bergoglio is a formal and manifest heretic. Being so, he would definitely not be a member of the Catholic Church.

So my question to you is: Are you prepared to state that a non-Catholic apostate or infidel openly aggressive to the Faith and who is not a member of the Church is your spiritual leader, even if at the peril of your immortal soul?

Good Catholic sense would seem to scream no. Sensus fidei

The Council stated that the decree is perpetual. You sedes will disregard whatever doesn't fit your imprudent nature. Prudence and procedure are foreign concepts to those who believe in mob rule, or "power of the people."

[Centroamerica]

All I can now reply is that you should definitely educate yourself a bit more (everyone should), instead of rambling off accusations of people being so imprudent.

Fr. Hesse was a vocal priest against the Sedevacantists working with the SSPX. He explains very clearly here (in a speech against Sedevacantism) that even though the bull of Paul IV said "in perpetuity" all elements of the bull regarding precisely a papal election where changed and can be changed because they are matters of Human Law.

If we go by your argument that Human Law can be made perpetual, than you would have to accept the Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus, which would definitely make sedevacantism your only position.

Your lack of theological understanding and emotional temperament has boxed you into a corner on this one.

I'm going offline. Watch this video and learn something.

[Meg]

All I can now reply is that you should definitely educate yourself a bit more (everyone should), instead of rambling off accusations of people being so imprudent.

Fr. Hesse was a vocal priest against the Sedevacantists working with the SSPX. He explains very clearly here (in a speech against Sedevacantism) that even though the bull of Paul IV said "in perpetuity" all elements of the bull regarding precisely a papal election where changed and can be changed because they are matters of Human Law.

If we go by your argument that Human Law can be made perpetual, than you would have to accept the Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus, which would definitely make sedevacantism your only position.

Your lack of theological understanding and emotional temperament has boxed you into a corner on this one.

I'm going offline. Watch this video and learn something.

Like I said, prudence and procedure are foreign concepts to sedes. 

[Stubborn]

I keep responding because you keep bashing Sedevacantism (not sure what "dogmatic" sv is) so I thought I would keep defending that position.

Let Fr. Jenkins explain what a dogmatic sede is. The link should start right at the right spot, if not, just watch 20 seconds of him, from 24:20 till 24:45.
https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459

[MyrnaM]

Lastdays I have a feeling we might see the lastdays of Stubborn on this thread.

Lets talk about Simony, am I to understand after I did a little research on Simony that Simony can be money, gift, profit or benefit etc. 

Fifth Lateran Council 1512-17 A.D.

 
SESSION 5
16 February 1513
[Bull renewing and confirming the Constitution against not committing the evil of simony when electing the Roman pontiff]
Inserted constitution
Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. From a consideration that the detestable crime of simony is forbidden by both divine and human law, particularly in spiritual matters, and that it is especially heinous and destructive for the whole church in the election of the Roman pontiff, the vicar of our lord Jesus Christ, we therefore, placed by God in charge of the government of the same universal church, despite being of little merit, desire, so far as we are able with God’s help, to take effective measures for the future with regard to the aforesaid things, as we are bound to, in accordance with the necessity of such an important matter and the greatness of the danger. With the advice and unanimous consent of our brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, by means of this our constitution which will have permanent validity, we establish, ordain, decree and define, by apostolic authority and the fulness of our power, that if it happens (which may God avert in his mercy and goodness towards all), after God has released us or our successors from the government of the universal church, that by the efforts of the enemy of the human race and following the urge of ambition or greed, the election of the Roman pontiff is made or effected by the person who is elected, or by one or several members of the college of cardinals, giving their votes in a manner that in any way involves simony being committed — by the gift, promise or receipt of money, goods of any sort, castles, offices, benefices, promises or obligations — by the person elected or by one or several other persons, in any manner or form whatsoever, even if the election resulted in a majority of two-thirds or in the unanimous choice of all the cardinals, or even in a spontaneous agreement on the part of all, without a scrutiny being made, then not only is this election or choice itself null, and does not bestow on the person elected or chosen in this fashion any right of either spiritual or temporal administration, but also there can be alleged and presented, against the person elected or chosen in this manner, by any one of the cardinals who has taken part in the election, the charge of simony, as a true and unquestionable heresy, so that the one elected is not regarded by anyone as the Roman pontiff.
A further consequence is that the person elected in this manner is automatically deprived, without the need of any other declaration, of his cardinal’s rank and of all other honours whatsoever as well as of cathedral churches, even metropolitan and patriarchical ones, monasteries, dignities and all other benefices and pensions of whatever kind which he was then holding by title or in commendam or otherwise; and that the elected person is to be regarded as, and is in fact, not a follower of the apostles but an apostate and, like Simon, a magicianl and a heresiarch, and perpetually debarred from each and all of the above-mentioned things. A simoniacal election of this kind is never at any time to be made valid by a subsequent enthronement or the passage of time, or even by the act of adoration or obedience of all the Cardinals. It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals, even those who consented to the simoniacal election or promotion, even after the enthronement and adoration or obedience, as well as for all the clergy and the Roman people, together with those serving as prefects, castellans, captains and other officials at the Castel Sant’ Angelo in Rome and any other strongholds of the Roman church, notwithstanding any submission or oath or pledge given, to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a heresiarch. To discomfort him still further, if he uses the pretext of the election to interfere in the government of the universal church, the cardinals who wish to oppose the aforesaid election can ask for the help of the secular arm against him.
 
 

[Stubborn]

Stubborn likes to pull these antics, because he has no answer for any of our arguments. I know of no sede on this forum who claims that they have made an official deposition and declaration of any conciliar claimant to the papacy.

First, I already know what a BOD is. Second, AES said he was unsure what a dogmatic sede is. I only offered it to him because he said he did not know what a dogmatic sede is, the explanation of Fr. Jenkins, explains it beautifully in under 30 seconds, he explains what a dogmatic sede is like this:

"...there are some sedevacantists who are dogmatic sedevacantists, I don't even consider them to be traditional Catholics. I mean there are some who will say; 'John Paul II was no pope, I can prove it, it's a matter of faith and if you believe he is the pope you're not a Catholic!' I don't even consider those people to be traditional Catholics at all".  

If you watch the whole video, Fr. explains what a non-dogmatic sede is when he says, those are people who say: "I'm not saying he's not the pope, I'm just saying I don't see how he could be..."

So according to Fr. Jenkin's explanation, which type of sede are you and AES? - a dogmatic sede or a non-dogmatic sede?