[SeanJohnson]

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.

Yep.
Now, think about why that is.

[Stubborn]

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

We were at 6 when I made the call.

We can easily push it beyond 25 pages.

[Ladislaus]

Yep.
Now, think about why that is.

That's not difficult.  These theological issues are at the heart of everything we're about as Traditional Catholics ... the justification and theological raison d'etre for everything we do.

[SeanJohnson]

That's not difficult.  These theological issues are at the heart of everything we're about as Traditional Catholics ... the justification and theological raison d'etre for everything we do.

Nope.

[Ladislaus]

Nope.

Please enlighten us then, o sage.  

[Cantarella]

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.

Let's see... religious liberty, ecuмenism, non-Catholics belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, Episcopal collegiality, protestantized NOM, friendly relations with Judaism, to name a few... would not these errors constitute a defection of the Magisterium? They are not small matters.

[Meg]

Let's see... religious liberty, ecuмenism, non-Catholics belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, Episcopal collegiality, protestantized NOM, friendly relations with Judaism, to name a few... would not these errors constitute a defection of the Magisterium? They are not small matters.

What was Archbishop Lefebvre's view on the matter?

And btw, I can't quite figure out if you are a sede. I would like to know if I should include you in furture sede counts on this thread. 

[Stubborn]

They throw these words around like they have no meaning. Just because they have no meaning to them. It's like Stubbs and his use of the made-up term sedeism. The doctrine of the chair. LOL
If only they could think.

But I do think. I know that there is no room for sedesim in the Catholic faith, that much is certain. Sedeism is wholly incompatible with the Catholic faith. Sedeism is like a foreign germ invading a body that has no room for it, so it invades and replaces the true faith with a distorted faith of half truths, no pope and no hierarchy and no hope of that ever changing.   

[Ladislaus]

Let's see... religious liberty, ecuмenism, non-Catholics belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, Episcopal collegiality, protestantized NOM, friendly relations with Judaism, to name a few... would not these errors constitute a defection of the Magisterium? They are not small matters.

That's exactly right.  You see the big picture and we're not talking here about a small theological mistake in an Encyclical, are we?  We're talking about a complete re-orientation of the Magisterium along non-Catholic lines ... and that would most certainly constitute a defection.  So the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church are leading people to lose the faith and their souls?  If that would not constitute a defection of the Magisterium, then nothing would.

[Stubborn]

That's exactly right.  You see the big picture and we're not talking here about a small theological mistake in an Encyclical, are we?  We're talking about a complete re-orientation of the Magisterium along non-Catholic lines ... and that would most certainly constitute a defection.  So the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church are leading people to lose the faith and their souls?  If that would not constitute a defection of the Magisterium, then nothing would.

Defection of the hierarchy is not defection of the Magisterium.  It is impossible for the magisterium to defect.

[Ladislaus]

Defection of the hierarchy is not defection of the Magisterium.  It is impossible for the magisterium to defect.

Yes, we know how you keep parroting this same absurdity.  When you attribute this degree of error to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline, that's tantamount to saying that they have defected.  Yes, I know your absurd comeback, that the erroneous parts of V2, etc., are of the hierarchy but not part of the Magisterium.  You define Magisterium as "true teaching".  None of us wants to hear this nonsense.  PS, Stubborn, do you know that it's also heresy to say that the hiererchy can defect?

[Mithrandylan]

The magisterium and hierarchy cannot be so hyper-distinguished as to say that one can exist without the other.  The magisterium is the teaching office of the Church.  Its activity is something carried out by people, not by God directly revealing Himself to each and every person individually and telling them to believe x, y, and z.  Without people (i.e., the hierarchy), you have no magisterium.
.
I know Stubborn will say that the magisterium is the teachings, not the teachers.  But you need teachers to ever get teachings.  So it's a meaningless distinction even if we grant it.

[Stubborn]

Yes, we know how you keep parroting this same absurdity.  When you attribute this degree of error to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline, that's tantamount to saying that they have defected.  Yes, I know your absurd comeback, that the erroneous parts of V2, etc., are of the hierarchy but not part of the Magisterium.  You define Magisterium as "true teaching".  None of us wants to hear this nonsense.  PS, Stubborn, do you know that it's also heresy to say that the hiererchy can defect?

In case you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I did not say that the hierarchy defected. At the same time, it is completely OBVIOUS that the hierarchy are in error because as a body, they've promoted and taught errors ad nausem for the last +50 years. This is only reality to everyone who has the true faith.

You keep implying that the heretical hierarchy is actually the magisterium, then you say that the magisterium cannot defect as if to purposely confuse the whole issue - fyi, THAT is what is absurd.

[Ladislaus]

Do you know if Fr. Chazal believes the conciliar church to be the Catholic Church?

Materially yes but formally no.  Again very sedeprivationist.



It's called by someone "Against Sedevacantism" but what he's really against is just DOGMATIC sedevacantism ... if you listen

very early on says that Francis is, "like his predecessors, but in a very clear way",  a "notorious", "open" "public" "heretic" 2:12 - 2:27

5:00 - 5:30 -- that there's in Rome a man dressed in white who is the visible (aka IMO "material") head of the Catholic Church

5:45 - 5:55 -- Vatican II docuмents contain heresies so these docuмents can be rejected
... then following that the New Mass and Canon Law are bad and "we can get rid of it"

NOTICE:  no sifting ... just throw it all out

then ... papacy is unlike other offices.  Cardinals merely designate the person but he receives authority from God

7:13 - 7:30 question is what happens when a pope is a "manifest heretic" since "we do grant that this pope is a public manifest heretic"

11:45 - 11:50 Paul VI was a Mason and gαy

12:00 - 12:05 Sister Lucy silenced and possibly replaced

at one point he conflates the Dimonds with "St. Benedict Center" and rejects their position that the Fatima consecration of Russia has been done

8:25 - 8:45 ... introduces "dogmatic" sedevacantism
then goes on to reject it because there are many authoritative theologians who argue against the Bellarmine position of ipso facto depositus

40:30 - 40:40 Rome has lost the faith

41:00 - 41:35 [Conciliar Church] is a heretical Church ... Francis is still the pope because heresy does not (in his opinion) lead to automatic loss of office, but he is "impounded and we have to separate from him" (based on it being a disputed question)

43:00 - 43:10 Catholic Church would explode and lose its "visibility on earth" (aka material visibility)

44:50 - 45:10 it's "beyond any doubt" that Pope Francis has lost the faith and he won't argue with sedevacantists on that because  "it would be ridiculous for me to deny that" ... then rejects SSPX distinction between modernists and heretics

then ... we are bound to separate from them due to risk of contagion; they are "vomiting heresies all the time" ... commends Traditio and NovusOrdoWatch

48:50 - 50:10 if there's no pope how do we restart the Church?  [again sounds like sedeprivationism]

51:06 - 51:20 we are just keeping the little white man over there just to keep us together ... that's not much (just a material source of unity) ... just a "tiny link" which is still vital to us

then goes on to discuss Cajetan's position and that of John of St. Thomas

such a pope is prevented from formally exercising his office ... "necessarily rendered impotent as being head of the Church" (formal loss of office as in sedeprivationism)

[THAT'S THE END OF HOUR 1 ... will go through the next hour later]

[Ladislaus]

Everyone on this thread needs to watch the Father Chazal video above.