[Ladislaus]

I sift out what isn't Traditionally Catholic. There's a difference. Sedes don't do this. They sift out what doesn't fit their sede thesis.

AND....some sedes say that we have to accept EVERYTHING that Francis teaches, and that we aren't allowed to sift. Do you agree with this?

Not EVERYTHING certainly.  There are things in the "merely authentic" Magisterium which can be questioned ... respectfully.  But you chuck out the Universal Discipline of the Church as established by the V2 papal claimants and most of their Magisterium.

Here's the clue.  If you claim that the Universal Discipline of the Church and the Magisterium have gone so badly off the rails that you must essentially sever communion with the V2 papal claimants in order to keep the faith and that these things are a danger to your faith and displeasing to God, then you hold that the Church has defected.  While I don't agree with the sedes on everything, and am not a sedevacantist myself, their criticism of you is absolutely valid.

[MyrnaM]

If the sedes have faith in the last "true" pope, then they would accept his laws, all of them, each and every one of them - particularly the law stating the man elected is the true pope.

If sede's have any faith at all in the last "true" pope, then they should in fact be very grateful to him - especially in this crisis where there is much confusion, that the last "true" pope did his duty and did not leave us wondering who the heck the true pope really is in these confusing times.

The Baltimore catechism though very good, is in need of having a few lessons corrected. It is a text book, not the Bible.

Stubborn et al, when you read what the TRUE popes are saying, have you ever considered their words about the election of a Pope was the election of a Pope within the Catholic Church, not the non-catholic, schismatic church of Vatican II.  There is the difference.


How many times have I read here, over and over that Vatican II is not Catholic.
At best think of Vatican II as the schismatic Anglican or Orthodox churches.  The True popes were not speaking about a church that fell away from Rome.  Possession does not mean OWNERSHIP.  


This is why there can be no meeting of the minds because posters quote this theologian and that abrogation but those words were all meant for normal times.  Who would have thought, even though the Bible talks about the Great Apostasy, who would have thought it would come in our lifetime.

 
Stubborn, define the Great Apostasy.
Also, I am still waiting for someone, to come along and explain how a True Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, not only once but daily the First Commandment and still be considered a True Vicar of Christ.  

Words of Stubborn -->   The Baltimore catechism though very good, is in need of having a few lessons corrected. It is a text book, not the Bible.  

And you chide others!    

[Ladislaus]

Let it rest, like the sedes, you have no case Lad. The only case you have is the case you feel needs to be invented for no reason whatsoever.

Oh, the sedes have a very strong case ... especially against the likes of you who promote a completely non-Catholic view of the Magisterium.  Indeed, severing communion with the man you claim to be Pope absolutely REQUIRES a reason.

[Stubborn]

Stubborn, define the Great Apostasy.
Also, I am still waiting for someone, to come along and explain how a True Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, not only once but daily the First Commandment and still be considered a True Vicar of Christ. 

What is there to explain? The pope is human, like the rest of us, he is not immune from sin. Did you know that there is not one single sin that the pope cannot commit? Did you know that?

[Cantarella]

.
Did someone hijack your account?  I seem to recall your schtick being a very relentless, unlearned, rabid, and contemptuous anti-sedevacantism one.  But I'd more or less sign my name to this.  Can't object to any of it, all excellent points bearing saliently on the issue.  The only thing I'd say is that while universal acceptance is a proof of the legitimacy of a papal claim, the converse is not a proof of an anti-papacy (of itself).

No, it is me :).

It is just that there is a finding that finally resonated and has to do with what is written above: All the bishops IN THE ABSENCE OF A POPE ARE NOT infallible. This is one of the premises that finally completed the puzzle because it makes much more sense for the man occupying the Seat of Peter to be an illegitimate impostor; than for thousands of bishops and priests to defect all at once. Because of what we know now, and has been docuмented, it is reasonable to believe that these men have been impostors. If there has not been a legitimate Pontiff on earth, with that single factor, then all of a sudden everything makes sense. The entire collapse is understandable. There is no fountain of infallibility; but error upon error being far spread from the top.

The impostor, regardless of the particulars of the canonical election, has lost Authority on account of his habitual intention of doing harm, instead of good, to the Church. Actually, when the false pope teaches a point of false doctrine which runs contrary with that the Church has always taught, that right there is an infallible sign that the false pope possesses no divinely assisted pontifical Authority; given the Catholic principle of non-Contradiction.

 

[Stubborn]

Oh, the sedes have a very strong case ... especially against the likes of you who promote a completely non-Catholic view of the Magisterium.  Indeed, severing communion with the man you claim to be Pope absolutely REQUIRES a reason.

They have no case whatsoever, except in their own minds. The last "true" pope did not leave us ignorant - he said the man elected is the pope, the true pope. There is our infallible certainty that the man elected is the "true" pope right there. Argue it all you like but that will not change that fact. The truth is, the sedes will never, not ever have a pope because there will never be anyone holy enough for them that they can blindly submit to.

The sedes believe the pope is God and at the same time that the pope is a heretic, ergo, God is a heretic. Who can argue with that brainwashing? They need to be de-programmed. All I keep doing is presenting the Catholic Church's teaching, all they keep doing is saying it's heresy, it doesn't apply and that I'm the non-Catholic and heretic for it.

You say I promote a completely non-Catholic view of the Magisterium because it disagrees with certain 19th and 20th century theologians' views - I cannot help people believe those theologians views are authentic teachings of the Church and that no amount of reasoning will convince them otherwise - not my fault there.

Well, here's your opportunity - go ahead and post the any authentic Church teaching that says the infallible magisterium is either the pope alone or includes all the bishops alone but in union with the pope either in council or dispersed throughout the world and is infallible when they all agree on and teach a new doctrine.  

[Meg]

Not EVERYTHING certainly.  There are things in the "merely authentic" Magisterium which can be questioned ... respectfully.  But you chuck out the Universal Discipline of the Church as established by the V2 papal claimants and most of their Magisterium.

Here's the clue.  If you claim that the Universal Discipline of the Church and the Magisterium have gone so badly off the rails that you must essentially sever communion with the V2 papal claimants in order to keep the faith and that these things are a danger to your faith and displeasing to God, then you hold that the Church has defected.  While I don't agree with the sedes on everything, and am not a sedevacantist myself, their criticism of you is absolutely valid.

What do you mean by "sever communion?" I do not hold that the Church has defected. That's the sede thesis. Surely you know that. 

By not aligning myself with the Modernist conciliar church, this not mean that I believe that the Church has defected. You are jumping to conclusions. 

Have you read Bishop Tissier de Mallerais study on the issue of the Crisis? Here it is:

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

The Church has not defected. It is occupied. There's a difference. 

[Ladislaus]

They have no case whatsoever, except in their own minds. The last "true" pope did not leave us ignorant - he said the man elected is the pope, the true pope.

Did you even READ this docuмent?  There are stipulations in there that the election would be invalid and the votes would not count if, among other things, there were collusion among the Cardinals on whom to elect.  So this PRESUPPOSES A LEGITIMATE ELECTION to begin with.  And another way that the election would have been illegitimate to begin with would be if the candidate were not proper matter to hold office (woman, insane, heretic, etc.) -- as per cuм ex.  There are MANY credible reports that there was collusion in the conclave that delivered John XXIII as well as the most recent one that brought us Francis.  It's very probable that Siri was elected instead of Roncalli and that there was collusion to overturn the election results.

[Ladislaus]

What do you mean by "sever communion?" I do not hold that the Church has defected. That's the sede thesis. Surely you know that.

By not aligning myself with the Modernist conciliar church, this not mean that I believe that the Church has defected. You are jumping to conclusions.

Have you read Bishop Tissier de Mallerais study on the issue of the Crisis? Here it is:

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

The Church has not defected. It is occupied. There's a difference.

By severing communion we mean exactly what you said ... that you refuse to align with the Conciliar Church, aka the Church of the V2 papal claimants.

Yes, you absolutely do hold that the Church has defected.  You claim that she has failed in her mission ... in the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline.

This R&R crap is not even remotely Catholic.  It would be one thing if you found a troublesome statement in one or another encyclical .. but quite another to effectively throw out an entire Ecuмenical Council and the Church's Universal Discipline (New Mass).

[Meg]

Did you even READ this docuмent?  There are stipulations in there that the election would be invalid and the votes would not count if, among other things, there were collusion among the Cardinals on whom to elect.  So this PRESUPPOSES A LEGITIMATE ELECTION to begin with.  And another way that the election would have been illegitimate to begin with would be if the candidate were not proper matter to hold office (woman, insane, heretic, etc.) -- as per cuм ex.  There are MANY credible reports that there was collusion in the conclave that delivered John XXIII as well as the most recent one that brought us Francis.  It's very probable that Siri was elected instead of Roncalli and that there was collusion to overturn the election results.

I just want to briefly mention that there's good evidence that Cardinal Siri refused to be Pope. They do have a choice. 

[Meg]

By severing communion we mean exactly what you said ... that you refuse to align with the Conciliar Church, aka the Church of the V2 papal claimants.

Yes, you absolutely do hold that the Church has defected.  You claim that she has failed in her mission ... in the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline.

This R&R crap is not even remotely Catholic.  It would be one thing if you found a troublesome statement in one or another encyclical .. but quite another to effectively throw out an entire Ecuмenical Council and the Church's Universal Discipline (New Mass).

No Ladislaus, it's NOT the same thing. No, I do not hold that the Church has defected. You do not understand the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Just because you experienced a very negative experience with the SSPX does not qualify you to pronounce judgment on those who accept +ABL's position.

[Meg]

Right now, six out of thirteen forum members log on are sedes. 

[MyrnaM]

What do you mean by "sever communion?" I do not hold that the Church has defected. That's the sede thesis. Surely you know that.

By not aligning myself with the Modernist conciliar church, this not mean that I believe that the Church has defected. You are jumping to conclusions.

Have you read Bishop Tissier de Mallerais study on the issue of the Crisis? Here it is:

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

The Church has not defected. It is occupied. There's a difference.

If what you say is true, Meg ... I wonder what is it you believe Francis is teaching us, pick something from your Traditional Catholic point of view that you agree with him.

[Mithrandylan]

No, it is me :).

It is just that there is a finding that finally resonated and has to do with what is written above: All the bishops IN THE ABSENCE OF A POPE ARE NOT infallible. This is one of the premises that finally completed the puzzle because it makes much more sense for the man occupying the Seat of Peter to be an illegitimate impostor; than for thousands of bishops and priests to defect all at once. Because of what we know now, and has been docuмented, it is reasonable to believe that these men have been impostors. If there has not been a legitimate Pontiff on earth, with that single factor, then all of a sudden everything makes sense. The entire collapse is understandable. There is no fountain of infallibility; but error upon error being far spread from the top.

The impostor, regardless of the particulars of the canonical election, has lost Authority on account of his habitual intention of doing harm, instead of good, to the Church. Actually, when the false pope teaches a point of false doctrine which runs contrary with that the Church has always taught, that right there is an infallible sign that the false pope possesses no divinely assisted pontifical Authority; given the Catholic principle of non-Contradiction.

 

.
Well color me pleasantly impressed, and good for you, to seriously consider what these authors have to say and why they say it.
.
Your main point here resonates profoundly-- that all of the bishops in the world can very well err (though not in the most absolute sense, given that there must be at least one proper bishop for apostolicity's sake), even as a moral unanimity, when there is no pope.  When we register this fact, what happened after Vatican II follows cogently and with great coherence. 

[Ladislaus]

No Ladislaus, it's NOT the same thing. No, I do not hold that the Church has defected. You do not understand the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Just because you experienced a very negative experience with the SSPX does not qualify you to pronounce judgment on those who accept +ABL's position.

You have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

I didn't have a negative experience with SSPX.  What are you talking about?  I reject your position as non-Catholic because it's ....... not Catholic ... and not because of some emotional dislike for SSPX.  I had the best times of my life at the seminary.  +Lefebvre's position was all over the map; that's why rival groups always quote him against each other.