[Ladislaus]

You keep implying that the heretical hierarchy is actually the magisterium, ...

See Lastdays' anticipation of this response.  Magisterium is the teaching of said hierarchy.  When said hierarchy teaches authoritatively then it's called Magisterium.  You're not saying that these individual teachers have gone astray but that their official teaching has ... their Magisterium.

[Stubborn]

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.

I will try this again.......

"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium". - V1

Is this saying or is this not saying that all those things we are bound to believe come to us BY the Church's SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM, i.e. the pope defining a doctrine - - *OR*, they are [already] contained IN, both the Church's Ordinary Magisterium and IN the Church's Universal Magisterium?

Infallible truths are not contained IN the hierarchy, infallible truths are not even contained IN the pope. The truths which are  contained in the magisterium are [supposed] to be proposed by the Church, that is, taught to us by the hierarchy. But the hierarchy is not the magisterium itself.

[Stubborn]

See Lastdays' anticipation of this response.  Magisterium is the teaching of said hierarchy.  When said hierarchy teaches authoritatively then it's called Magisterium.  You're not saying that these individual teachers have gone astray but that their official teaching has ... their Magisterium.

Lastdays is in a terrible situation.

I quote him defined dogma, he re-quotes it replacing all references to the pope with the word heretic. What's worse is that not one sede said a word about it.

Magisterium is not the teachings of the hierarchy.  The hierarchy are not immune from sin and are perfectly capable of teaching error - as the last +50 years testifies.

[Mithrandylan]

I will try this again.......

"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium". - V1

Is this saying or is this not saying that all those things we are bound to believe come to us BY the Church's SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM, i.e. the pope defining a doctrine - - *OR*, they are [already] contained IN, both the Church's Ordinary Magisterium and IN the Church's Universal Magisterium?

Infallible truths are not contained IN the hierarchy, infallible truths are not even contained IN the pope. The truths which are  contained in the magisterium are [supposed] to be proposed by the Church, that is, taught to us by the hierarchy. But the hierarchy is not the magisterium itself.

.
Doctrinal Truths are communicated to the faithful, i.e., they are proposed.  This whole "they aren't contained in x, y, or z" is entirely beside the point and you're hardly of the minimum required intellect to attempt to have a discussion about the metaphysical or ontological "location" of such and such a truth, considered in itself.  But even if you were, this misses the point entirely, because the individual Catholic's duty to believe what the Church teaches cannot be fulfilled except and unless there are certain authoritative people (i.e., the hierarchy) who propose for belief such and such a doctrine. 
.

[Stubborn]

.
Doctrinal Truths are communicated to the faithful, i.e., they are proposed.  This whole "they aren't contained in x, y, or z" is entirely beside the point and you're hardly of the minimum required intellect to attempt to have a discussion about the metaphysical or ontological "location" of such and such a truth, considered in itself.  But even if you were, this misses the point entirely, because the individual Catholic's duty to believe what the Church teaches cannot be fulfilled except and unless there are certain authoritative people (i.e., the hierarchy) who propose for belief such and such a doctrine.  
.

So even after reading V1, plainly you have no idea where the truths we must believe are contained, but I'm hardly of the minimum required intellect to discuss such thing. LOL

Well, you gotta do what you gotta do to maintain your sedeism I guess.

[Stubborn]

^^^^^ See what I mean? Happens every time they try to use Catholic teachings to vindicate their sedeism.

[JohnAnthonyMarie]

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

Thank you for the link.  I enjoyed watching it.  
You might know I personally observe that a condition of sede vacante has befallen the Church.  This is my observation and it is in no way binding on others.  I can not speak to the disposition of others because I can not see through their eyes, nor would I even dare to.  I firmly believe that in this situation God is extending every Grace to His faithful and I trust “he that shall preserve to the end, he shall be saved”.  
That being said, here is a reply to the video http://www.fathercekada.com/2017/08/25/my-response-to-fr-chazals-contra-cekadam/

[Ladislaus]

Magisterium is not the teachings of the hierarchy. 

[Meg]

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]

What little I watched of the video is quite good, from about 1:45 to 1:59.

At about the 1:55 minute mark, Father says...

"David is angry at the one who takes down the anointed of the Lord. It's an anointing of God; it comes from God. The central argument of John of St. Thomas is that this anointing comes from God and it's very hard to dissolve it."  (I assume that he is referring to the election of the Pope).

At the 1:56 mark, Father says...

"I am not arguing down the line that they are losing office, or that they do not deserve to lose office, or that God hasn't planned to make them lose office. [...] By law, they should be immediately removed from office. The problem is that the See of Rome is judged by no one. It's on the top. We need to keep the constitution of the Church intact, [for] when the papacy will at last start to run on its feet."

And at the 1:57 minute mark, Father says:

[...] And what is missed by the sedevacantists is that we can relate to the poor souls who are marooned in the Novus Ordo church, because I see it in the Philippines, the little Filipinos we are arrived in the village of (can't understand the name of the village), and we are taking them out of the Novus Ordo parish and they are asking: are you with the pope over there in Rome? And my answer is "yes." And there is no lie there. Where as if I were sedevacantist, how I would (escape?) to lie. You would have to make a gigantic mental reservation to get away with that lie. So it has put us in a much better position."

There's so much more that I'd like to quote when I have time, from Fr. Chazal's video. Maybe tomorrow. He comments about how some sedevacantists have gone straight from sedevacantism to the Novus Ordo, and that there must be some liberalism there for that to happen.

[Ladislaus]

Thank you for the link.  I enjoyed watching it.  

This kind of clear thinking on the subject could bring most Traditional Catholics together.

[JohnAnthonyMarie]

This kind of clear thinking on the subject could bring most Traditional Catholics together.

There was an indication that Father believes it is impossible to have a pope again from the condition of sede vacante.  I do not believe anything is impossible with God, and that in time there will be a resolution to this situation.

[Meg]

There was an indication that Father believes it is impossible to have a pope again from the condition of sede vacante.  I do not believe anything is impossible with God, and that in time there will be a resolution to this situation.

Father said that the problem is that See of Rome is judged by no one. It's at the top, and that the constitution has to be kept intact for when the papacy gets back on its feet. 

[Cantarella]

Good question. I was thinking of posting this myself. The faithful are very dull (like sheep), so my example would distinguish "young and impressionable" children. Bergoglio would win them over with his clown noses, jokes and some candy (I'm sure). Then he would teach them all sorts of lies and abominable heresies and give them zero discipline. 

[JohnAnthonyMarie]

Father said that the problem is that See of Rome is judged by no one. It's at the top, and that the constitution has to be kept intact for when the papacy gets back on its feet.

Thank you for your reply. I agree with you, the pope is judged by no one.  I don’t imagine myself judging the eternal disposition of anyone, and certainly not the pope.  All I can do pray that I serve our Lord to my end and hope for His mercy on my soul.  I am charged to flee from error, so when I recognize errors from Second Vatican Council, I simply turn from that danger and cling to the Faith as it always was.  Something happened to the Church in the nineteen-sixties that defies logic, all the while, it is an objective fact that the modern orientation despises the traditional practice, so much so that near every facet of our Faith was modernized.  It seems obvious to me that the warnings of Pope Saint Pius X were ignored and our Church has suffered for it.

[Pax Vobis]

From my experience and study, which Fr Chazal confirms, there's a lot of 'gray area' between R&R and Sedevacantism.  Our American mindset usually defaults to 'sports' where team A is vs team B, or it's republicans vs democrat - and no other 3rd team/position - but this is not reality.  Anyone who is honest will admit that both R&R and sedevacantism have problems.  The answer must lie in the middle.  I'm not saying Fr Chazal is absolutely right, just saying that his conclusion is generally right - that it is possible to hold a church office materially, but not spiritually.  Plenty of theologians have reached this conclusion.  Many do not like this view because it's not a "clean" or "black and white" answer, so they choose R&R vs sede.  That's fine, in a general sense, but once you start talking specifics, the answer is a mix of both.