[Ladislaus]

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

And all the evidence points to his refusal having been under duress ... in the face of threats.  Regardless of how free his refusal may have been, the evidence is strong that there was collusion in pressuring him to step down.  Consequently, those votes would have been invalidated under the terms of St. Pius X.

[MyrnaM]

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?

I get that!  You sound like all the rest here that can't define "apostasy" a denial of Christ.  What do you think breaking Divine Law is ... its APOSTASY!  Imagine a TRUE pope bowing to a pagan god.  
Those who know what Apostasy IS, don't want to think about it.  "Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth."
[2 Timothy 3:7]

[Meg]

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.

When the conciliar hierarchy teaches what is truly Catholic, which doesn't appear to happen often, but it can, then there is Catholic teaching. I'm not going to provide specifics, Myrna. You'll just have to get over it. 

The Church has not defected. There is still evidence of Catholicism, slight though it may seem. 

Sedeism is an extreme reaction to a real problem. The Catholic Church, from what I have studied, takes prudence and procedure seriously. That's something sedes can't tolerate. 

[Meg]

And all the evidence points to his refusal having been under duress ... in the face of threats.  Regardless of how free his refusal may have been, the evidence is strong that there was collusion in pressuring him to step down.  Consequently, those votes would have been invalidated under the terms of St. Pius X.

Evidence is not proof, Ladislaus.

Those two terms that sedes have such a dislike for....prudence and procedure....

[TKGS]

When the conciliar hierarchy teaches what is truly Catholic, which doesn't appear to happen often, but it can, then there is Catholic teaching. I'm not going to provide specifics.

This is essentially how Protestants judge the teaching of their leaders.

[MyrnaM]

When the conciliar hierarchy teaches what is truly Catholic, which doesn't appear to happen often, but it can, then there is Catholic teaching. I'm not going to provide specifics, Myrna. You'll just have to get over it.

The Church has not defected. There is still evidence of Catholicism, slight though it may seem.

Sedeism is an extreme reaction to a real problem. The Catholic Church, from what I have studied, takes prudence and procedure seriously. That's something sedes can't tolerate.

You can't even think of one point that is Catholic that your pope talks about and you call the sede out!   That is laughable but very sad!    

[Ladislaus]

Evidence is not proof, Ladislaus.

Those two terms that sedes have such a dislike for....prudence and procedure....

Clearly not.  But positive doubt is all that's required to withdraw submission.  Magisterium sifting on the other hand is not Catholic.

[SeanJohnson]

I'm giving 5:1 odds this thread goes at least 15 pages.

We are now at 11 (and counting)...

We were at 6 when I made the call.

[Ladislaus]

"prudence and procedure" ... quite right

Which is why I'm not a sede but a sededoubtist; this has to work itself out.

But, in the meantime, we can't adopt non-Catholic principles of R&R to justify our refusal of submission.  Only a positive doubt regarding the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimaints can justify being Traditional Catholics.  Otherwise, we're schismatic and also embracing extremely grave error (IMO proximate to heresy) to claim that the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline have failed.

[Ladislaus]

We are now at 11 (and counting)...

We were at 6 when I made the call.

You don't have to be a Nostradamus to figure that one out.  Any topic about SVism or Baptism of Desire or a few other hot-button topics is guaranteed to go at least into the 20s or 30s.

[Stubborn]

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.

That's right, it presupposes a legitimate election - does it need to be said that all elections that turn out a pope are legitimate elections?

The only ones who presuppose an illegitimate election are the confused and the sedes. The dogmatic sedes don't only presuppose illegitimacy, they are absolutely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt the election was illegitimate - just as they will be with every election till the end of time because that is the thinking that is inherent in the sede mentality - you cannot be a dogmatic sede without that mentality.

[MyrnaM]

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

whoop-de-doo

[Ladislaus]

Clearly not.  But positive doubt is all that's required to withdraw submission.  Magisterium sifting on the other hand is not Catholic.

Father Francois Chazal (of the Resistance) articulated the position that I consider to be most Catholic.  He's honest enough to admit that he's not sifting the V2 Magisterium but ignoring it in its entirety due to heresy on the part of the V2 papal claimants.  So he considers the V2 popes to be "in quarantine" until the Church officially resolves their fate and materially vacates the office (by declaring it vacant).  That's my position as well.  This is very close to sedeprivationism but is not ... deferring more to the Church's authority for even recognizing the See to be formally vacant.  It's very much akin to what I called "sededoubtism" in reference to my own position.

[Ladislaus]

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

Are you counting me as a sede?  Because I am not.  I am in line with Father Chazal's thinking on the matter.  Do you consider HIM a sede?

[Stubborn]

I get that!  You sound like all the rest here that can't define "apostasy" a denial of Christ.  What do you think breaking Divine Law is ... its APOSTASY!  Imagine a TRUE pope bowing to a pagan god.  
Those who know what Apostasy IS, don't want to think about it.  "Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth."
[2 Timothy 3:7]

Heresy is the denial of a single doctrine, apostasy is the denial of all the doctrines.

You asked me to explain the Great Apostasy, I don't know that there is only one definition for that.