[Cantarella]

Thanks Cantarella.  
As for the bolded:  For at least Francis, his pre-election heresy was public (there is ample evidence of it) and also not condemned by any legal procedure (just as his post-election heresy).  How is this different than his post-election heresy?  Wouldn't those who follow the CT have to at least say that his election was also illegitimate based on the principles they use post-election?  In order to be consistent?

The Thesis is based on the philosophical principles concerning Authority (jurisdiction); nothing else. The pre-elected man has not even any way to begin receiving this Authority because, well, he has not even been elected!. He is not vessel at all and he does not have the power of designation to start with. The Thesis says that the conciliar Popes (although legitimately elected) are no true popes because of the habitual intention of doing harm and leaves it at that. It is not concerned with the election itself for the reasons given before.

If there was never a legitimate election to begin with, then there was not even a pope-elect. No matter. Yes, it could be argued from a Totalist point of view, that the heretic was never elected to begin with; however, that leaves the problem of eccleasiavacantism; because if the elected man was never elected in fact, he does not have the power of designation, (so who has it? Has the Church ended?). This is, the faculty of nominating others (cardinals & bishops) to occupy offices, potentially have jurisdiction (if there is no impediment) and furthermore, preserve the means to elect a legitimate successor of St. Peter.

[Meg]

The Church does not end as long as there are valid episcopal orders somewhere in the world. An imperfect council would be called and those with valid episcopal orders would conditionally ordain Priests and consecrate Bishops of Rome (who have abjured their heresies and other errors).  Cardinals would not be absolutely necessary to elect a Pope (as this is an ecclesiastical law which can be dispensed with due to necessity). They would then appoint a new Pope who would in turn appoint new Cardinals. The new Pope would then ratify the council. Then all the novus ordites (Bergoglio and his subjects, such as Stubborn) would be in an uproar and begin to persecute Catholics (as they do today, but worse) led by the true Pope .

Quote from Lastdays above:

"The Church does not end as long as there are valid episcopal orders somewhere in the world. An imperfect council would be called and those with valid episcopal orders would conditionally ordain Priests and consecrate bishops of Rome (who have abjured their heresies and other errors)...."

Who are, may I ask, those who have "valid episcopal orders" in your view? Is it the sedevacantists? I can't imagine that you would think that anyone other than sedes would have valid episcopal orders. 

[Meg]

Resistance Bishops could (and do) certainly have valid episcopal orders. Some, however, will sadly want to remain subjects of Bergoglio (not realizing what the Church has taught regarding notoriously heretical claimants to the Papacy) and would not participate in the imperfect council.

Alright, but don't you believe that Resistance bishops are heretics and schismatics? 

[Cantarella]

The Church does not end as long as there are valid episcopal orders somewhere in the world. 

One would think that in this day and age with the ready availability of technology and such, we could actually track these valid episcopal orders, but nobody seems to knows where they are, so this argument is very vague.

Furthermore, at present time these episcopal offices are most likely filled with notorious heretics anyway, so per your argument, they would turn out to be actually empty.

[Meg]

They can abjure whatever heresies they may be holding and participate in the imperfect council. For certain they would have to abjure the heresy that notorious heretics (such as Bergoglio) can be considered members of the Catholic Church. If they believe that Bergoglio is not a member of the Church then they would have to abjure the heresy that non-members of the Church can hold ecclesiastical offices in the Catholic Church.

Okay, so the Resistance bishops would have to abjure their so-called heresy before they can hold ecclesiastical office, according to you. But are they, according to you, actual bishops with valid orders at this time....or not?

[Meg]

One would think that in this day and age with the ready availability of technology and such, we could actually track these valid episcopal orders, but nobody seems to knows where they are, so this argument is very vague.

Furthermore, at present time these episcopal offices are most likely filled with notorious heretics anyway, so per your argument, they would turn out to be actually empty.

A good example of the chaos and confusion that is sedevacantism. 

[Meg]

As long as they were consecrated in the rite used before the heretic Montini's changes, then they have valid orders. Once their heresies were abjured they would be full-fledged Catholic Bishops.

And what are they now? 

[Meg]

They are heretics with valid episcopal orders. Regardless of what heresies they are currently holding, their valid holy orders are not affected. You are confusing the two (heresy and valid orders). Even heretics and schismatics can pass on valid holy orders (once received). They cannot hold offices in the Catholic Church, however, until they abjure their heresies and enter the Catholic Church.

So, at this time, the only true Catholics (who are not heretics) are sedevacantists who hold that there is no pope, correct? 

The scenario that you foresee, for an imperfect council and then true Catholic bishops going to Rome (I presume going to Rome) to consecrate priests; this scenario means that you think that sedes will save the Church. And, if the Resistance bishops abjure their heresy of believing that the Pope is the Pope, then they can join your sede bishops in saving the Church. Is this correct? 

[Meg]

Only Jesus Christ can save the Church. He can use a Catholic (not a heretic) with valid episcopal orders to do this. Just because one is a sedevacantist Bishop, does not mean he does not hold a heresy (particularly regarding the modernist version BOD which some hold).

So as long as a sede bishop does not hold the modern version of the BoD view, then he can be used by God to save the Church. (I assume that you believe that the only true Catholics are sedes who do not hold the modern BoD view).

May I ask about how you arrived at this particular scenario? Is it your own assessment, or did you get it from someone else? 

[Meg]

An imperfect council resolved the Great Western Schism. It can be used again. I have heard it mentioned before.

Except that there were no sedevacantists around back then. Sedevacantism is a man-centered novelty, born of the modernist crisis, and as such cannot help God to save the Church.

[Merry]

Not to interrupt, but again, what does Canon 1556 mean: Prima sedes a nemine judicatur - "The first chair is judged by no one."

Also, what is meant by "sifting the magisterium"?  

[Stubborn]

It is of divine law that notorious heretics cannot be considered members of the Church, nor hold any office in the Church. They cannot even possess a valid election. Unfortunately, it is the "resisters" who follow the heresies and novelites of man (such as Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Wathan). You have it backwards as usual.

You still have not looked up Divine Law yet? What seems to be the problem? Perhaps this will strike a chord with you......

Very simply, Divine = God + Law is a law given to us directly from the mouth of God Himself. The Ten Commandments are Divine Law, the institution of the papacy is Divine Law, that the Church will last to the end of time might be said to be Divine Law, but there is no Divine Law "that notorious heretics cannot be considered members of the Church, nor hold any office in the Church." That particular law is dogmatic sede law because it only comes directly from the mouths of dogmatic sedes which, contrary to Divine Law, effectively  leaves the world with no pope, no hierarchy, no priests, no Church at all. That is the *only* result of your dogmatic sedeism.  

I understand this will be entirely lost on you, but for the benefit of others whose heads are spinning after reading your novel and twisted dogmatic sede theology; the Church, through a member or members of Her hierarchy, first accuses then judges the sinner, if this does not prompt the sinner to repent, She then dictates which sins are to receive which censures, and She does so primarily for the purpose of prompting the sinner to repent. The primary purpose is not so the Church can run around with glee while shouting the poor bastard has been kicked out of the Church la la la la!

After the Church pronounces Her judgement, Her censures are *always* primarily medicinal in nature with the intent of inducing the sinner to repent, they are never, nor are they ever intended to be an infallible decree that kicks the poor bastard permanently out of the Church and condemn him to hell with no hope at all, no matter how obstinate he is.  


You dogmatic sedes really need to stop [mis]using the teachings of the Catholic Church in your feeble attempts to vindicate sedeism. There are no teachings of the Catholic Church that in any way vindicate sedeism, they all only condemn every variation of it.



 

[Merry]

Thank you. Last Days.  I did go back and found the answer you gave earlier about the Canon.  

In conclusion, I say - you sedes are crazy.  Indeed, you believe there is no salvation outside sedevacantism!  That possibility used to be a joke - but now we see it is a truism of you all.  Sedevacantism is a "religion" unto itself.  

The fact that you have no authority to make a final judgement, but then go on to ACT UPON said judgment any way, proves you simply have the bit in your teeth.  Maybe these Popes will be declared by the Church in the future to have not been Popes, or the Church will nullify their pontificates and acts, but it's for the Church to do so! 

Anarchists.  You just add to the trouble.       

 

[Centroamerica]

I really like the sede chapel I've been going to. I've never heard a single hallway debate or the constant harping about how right their position is or how the other groups are wrong. I've never heard anything but Catholic truth in the sermons and serious matter for contemplation. The priest doesn't use his pulpit to talk about other priests or bishops selling out or how other Traditionalists groups are so wrong. Don't take that the wrong way. There are SSPX and resistance chapels that kind of have that too. I have no scruple about attending where there is the True Faith and Sacraments by uncompromisingly Catholic (true) priests. Yes, even SSPX chapels still have that in some places.

But attending the sede chapel I go to Mass at now was like a breath of fresh air after only attending with hardline anti-sedevacantists priests. It makes one wonder if certain groups (despite having excellent priests, bishops and religious) has not become a sort of control group to keep SSPX priests from joining the ranks of sedevacantists in the event of the SSPX's fall. I would even go so far to say that some of the anti-sedevacantism in the other groups is based off of emotion and personal issues rather than any substance. To give an example (example deleted by OP) Drive the wedge further down between the groups is all that seemed to do. 

(It's also a relief to be back in the US masses where you don't leave Mass wondering if you attended a High Mass or Low Mass due to incense being used but Leonine prayers being said together with Asperges being sung (at the beginning) but the rest of the Mass simply prayed...)

Each day it seems more and more ridiculous to claim that an openly hostile formal heretic such as Bergoglio is your visible head and spiritual leader. It borders on schismatic to even insist this since it separates one so much from other true Faithful Catholics. A house divided will not stand.

Bishop Williamson is right when he says that the only mere human that can unite Catholics is the pope. Not even a great archbishop could do it.

However, when you listen to the pioneers of the traditionalist movement, especially Canon Lawyer Fr. Hesse, it's so clear to see that they would have rejected the legitimacy of the "papacy" of Bergoglio. If you listen to Fr. Hesse's talk against the sedevacantists during the time of JP2, the contrast is so clear. Everything he says as to why he didn't believe you could say JP2 was invalid cannot be used to defend Bergoglio but actually to demonstrate that he is not a legitimate pope. I think that is HUGE!

And here's, once more, where my problem is with those who oppose the sede vacantist position during Bergoglio. The distinction and argument of material and formal heretic has completely disappeared. It's like the alleged pope has changed so the material/formal arguments have changed. The sede vacantists have not changed their arguments or scrapped them. They are still saying the same thing they've always said. That's why it is increasingly ridiculous for Traditional Catholics to not only separate themselves from the sede vacantists but to also dogmatically affirm that Bergoglio is the true visible head of the Catholic Church and spiritual leader of all Catholics. He is openly hostile to Catholic Truth and is not a member of the Catholic Church. He blurts out things like "today I feel like saying a heresy" and worse things I wouldn't repeat. Fr. Hesse would have been quick to denounce him as an illegitimate pope (that or backtrack and take back every argument he used against the sede vacantists).

[2Vermont]

Fr. Hesse would have been quick to denounce him as an illegitimate pope (that or backtrack and take back every argument he used against the sede vacantists).

Eh, I wouldn't be so sure.  Don't underestimate the position of the anti-sedevacantists:  "ANYTHING but sedevacantism".