[Incredulous]

It's whatever we want it to be.

For example, if Rabbi Streisand says it... I believe it.


       "Donald Trump is a fake president"

[2Vermont]

Wow, she looks awful.

[Ladislaus]

Catholics hold that the Chair is empty, because to hold otherwise would be heresy.

Complete and utter garbage.

[Pax Vobis]

All these quotes pertain to the 'ecclesiastical' penalties related to heresy (i.e. Human element of the penalty), which Pius X and XII suspended for Papal elections.  

I'm still waiting for you to show me the explicit teaching where it explains 'divine impediments' for heresy.  So far, it seems this is your interpretation and not a clear teaching.  

[Ladislaus]

Indeed it is theologically certain, perhaps even proximate to faith, that heretics are not members of the Church.  This cannot be disputed.  Yet it's not dogma, or de fide.  You often conflate truths of lesser theological notes with heresy ... a common problem with sedevacantists, especially the dogmatic types.  What's at issue is what happens to office and jurisdiction with a heretic, at what point that heretic loses office, and in particular at what point a Pope, who receives authority from God, would lose that authority from God.  Who has to discern the existence of this heresy?  Popes are a special case with regard to authority.  Bellarmine had his opinion, but many other credible theologians had a different position.  Those positions of Cajetan and Johh of St. Thomas et al. have never been condemned as heretical.

[Ladislaus]

The resistance (whether they admit it or not) is just another wing of the Novus Ordo sect. Once you accept Bergoglio as holding the office of Roman Pontiff (whether material or otherwise), you are a member of that sect. They are under the false impression that a true Pope can actually be the visible head of two entities (one Catholic and one hostile to Catholicism).

Father Chazal, of the Resistance, is in no way part of the "Novus Ordo sect" ... as you claim.  He's simply following distinctions that many reputable theologians have made.  He states quite clearly that we have an obligation to separate ourselves completely from them, regard their teaching and their activities as null and void, and simply to await the intervention of the Church's authority regarding the final disposition of the material occupancy of the Holy See.  That's NOT EVEN CLOSE to making him "another wing of the Novus Ordo sect".  You're simply too obtuse ... or bad-willed ... to understand these distinctions.  So, sure, Bishop des Laurier was also just a member of the Novus Ordo?

[Ladislaus]

Freedom was right about you when he said...

You stand for nothing and fall for everything.

Yeah, when you, like Freedom, are incapable of understanding theological distinctions, you fall back on ad hominems.  You should have been banned the same time that clown was also.

[Neil Obstat]

Ad hominems like "clown"?

.
JPII didn't think "clown" was a derogatory term. He really appreciated clowns.

[Pax Vobis]

LastDays, there is no clear, explicit teaching either way, which is why theologians have debated the question for centuries.  If it was clear that a formal heretic could not hold office, then theologians wouldn't waste their time on the question.  Do you really think these theologians WANT a heretic to hold office?  OF COURSE NOT.  They love the church...they are just trying to answer a question that hasn't been answered yet.  

[Merry]

Ok, from another angle.  If, just supposing, the true Church, the Modernist/Novus Ordo-free Church of the future, makes a decision, hands down a mandate concerning the Vatican II Popes and this decision is not what you sedevacantists would like to hear - let's say the decision is not what you would agree with - would you submit to it nevertheless?  Again, the True Church decides concerning the Modernist age and its Popes, and this is not a decision that makes the sedevacantists happy - would you nevertheless submit to the authority of this Church and Her decision regarding Her evaluation of the Vat. II Popes?  Leave open whatever the decision might end up being - just say sedevacantists don't like it.  Would you submit?

Or will it be "non serviam"?  

[Stubborn]

And sifting the Magisterium isn't?

Give an example, or 10 examples, what is "sifting the Magisterium"?

[Stubborn]

Unfortunately you are wrong again Mr. Twister. Divine Law is that which is enacted by God and given to us through revelation.

This ^^^^ is how dogmatic sedes have lost the faith, if they ever had it in the first place.

In my Catholic religion, my, the Catholic Church, which is built upon the Rock of St. Peter, Divine Law is exactly what it says, a law given to us directly from God Himself.

One of those laws says that the successors of St. Peter are indeed the pope, and my Church, via TRUE Pope Pius IX, in an Ecuмenical Council no less (V1), attaches an anathema to you - and to whoever says "that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter",  which is something you say repeatedly, as a mantra.

This is in the Catholic Church mind you - I understand that in your church, this law is considered to be the gravest of all heresies, but in my Church, which is the Catholic Church this is a dogma of our faith which we are bound under pain of mortal sin to accept. In your religion, this is heresy, ergo, you have a different religion - got that?

Best thing you can do is stop using Catholic Church teachings from now on - only use sede church teachings from now on - if you did that, it would no doubt immediately clear up this whole mess for everyone concerned.  

[2Vermont]

Indeed it is theologically certain, perhaps even proximate to faith, that heretics are not members of the Church.  This cannot be disputed.  Yet it's not dogma, or de fide.  You often conflate truths of lesser theological notes with heresy ... a common problem with sedevacantists, especially the dogmatic types.  What's at issue is what happens to office and jurisdiction with a heretic, at what point that heretic loses office, and in particular at what point a Pope, who receives authority from God, would lose that authority from God.  Who has to discern the existence of this heresy?  Popes are a special case with regard to authority.  Bellarmine had his opinion, but many other credible theologians had a different position.  Those positions of Cajetan and Johh of St. Thomas et al. have never been condemned as heretical.

Lad, how do you explain when Bellarmine explicitly states that all the ancient fathers taught that manifest heretics lose their offices ipso facto?  Do you hold that what he is stating is true?  And if it is true, then how can any other opinion be just as valid?  

[2Vermont]

Give an example, or 10 examples, what is "sifting the Magisterium"?

I'm also still interested in knowing what Herm's position is on the Crisis.  It seems he disagrees with both sedevacantists and sedeprivationists.  Is he a Novus Ordo trad?

[Stubborn]

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.

It's the dogmatic sedes Merry, they are the ones who are crazy to Catholics because like NOers, they profess an entirely different religion yet label themselves as Catholic. The religion of dogmatic sedes revolves around an empty chair, their religion has a major pope problem, namely, their church has no pope at all - and by scrupulous design, never will. This whole 'not having a pope', is in fact the foundation of their religion, this is the rock their church is built upon.

I just mention this to reassure you the reason why the dogmatic ones are crazy to us - it's because they label themselves as Catholic but they are not Catholic, they are Sede, they belong to the dogmatic sede church and wonder why they cannot find the true Church. Their religion is absolutely iniquitous and yes, certainly crazy to Catholics. 

Now the non-dogmatic sedes are Catholic, they're just a little (or a lot) confused about the pope, the degree of their confusion can and often does depend upon their degree of sedeism. Often times, non-dogmatic sedeism quickly leads to dogmatic sedeism, which is why it's always best for everyone, particularly for those just recently waking up and entering the fray, to completely and totally avoid the near occasion of sedeism altogether and simply strive to keep the faith.