[OHCA]

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.  

I can’t believe your stubbornness caused you to stoop to this mush-brained mumbo-jumbo that is so far beneath your intellect.

[Stubborn]

St. Vincent Ferrer said that Pope Urban VI was not Pope. He said that Antipope Clement was the Pope. Was St. Vincent a Catholic because he did exactly what you are saying Catholics never do?

Let me tell you what Catholics never do. They never call a notorious heretic their Pope. They never subject themselves to heretics. They never refuse submission to the Hierarchy that the Pope appoints. They never refuse obedience to all things the Pope says or does, except in infallible judgments. These are all things you and your "church" do.

What did I tell you about using Catholic saints to vindicate sedeism? I said don't use them.

Use your own saints'.

[Stubborn]

I can’t believe your stubbornness caused you to stoop to this mush-brained mumbo-jumbo that is so far beneath your intellect.

It's just the truth - that's all it is.

[Meg]

It is only a theory of mine but so far the "well respected" theologians theory explains how come so many people are so confused about the issue. +ABL knew there were many false teachings even in the seminaries, but he never put 2 and 2 together, iow, how the heck else could all these errors, all these liberal ideas infiltrate into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church - if not by the opinions of certain "well respected" theologians?

Well said. +ABL rightly saw the Modernist infiltration of the Church, but he doesn't seem to have been fully aware of the sedevacantist infiltration, which is just as serious as the Modernist infiltration, because the sede infiltration may affect trads more directly.

And just as the Modernists have their so-called well-respected theologians, the sedes seem to also have theirs. Though how many sedes have been directly influenced by Lastdays' Jesuit theologians is debatable. It would be interesting to know how much the modern sede movement has been directly influenced by those Jesuit theologians, as well as others from those days.

[Stubborn]

According to your own definition I'm not using a Catholic Saint. St. Vincent called the Pope, not the Pope. So, according to you, he was not Catholic. Do you want to actually talk about the subject or do you want to ignore the facts and hope they'll go away?
You also sound silly by calling it sedeism. It's not a doctrine of a chair. Then again, intelligence is not your strong suit or the ability to be Catholic.

We all know that sedes are superior to everyone, or perhaps better said, they are everyone's superior - even the popes'.

St. Vincent is mine not yours, he is a saint in the Catholic Church not the dogmatic sede church. He is one of the greatest saints of the Dominican Order - not the Sede Order.

He was one of the main forces the ended the GWS - he didn't sit around calling popes heretics and proclaim they were not popes, neither did he sit around calling Catholic heretics. That's what you do and attribute it to him like a bunch of heathens. Go find your own saints and use them to vindicate your dogmatic sedeism, leave our saints to us, you have no right to quote them as if they in any way would support your doctrine.

[Stubborn]

You still did not address what I said. You are still choosing to ignore facts. You say it's not Catholic to say the Pope is not the Pope. St. Vincent said that Pope Urban was not the Pope but he was. He did not call the Pope heretic because a) that's not even a thing b) neither Pope Urban nor Antipope Clement were heretics.
The point is you are saying that St. Vincent was not a Catholic because he said that Pope Urban was not the Pope. Respond to this particular point.

I'm not ignoring anything, the fact remains that he did not make it his mission in life to promote "there is no pope" and deny every law, dogma and doctrine that stood in the way of this one, good for nothing, man made doctrine. It is only too obvious that, unlike sedes,  he actually did something about it because, unlike sedeism, there was something that someone actually could do about it. The crisis during the GWS was a matter of "who is the pope?" but for the sedes, it's all founded upon and centered about "who isn't the pope".

[Pax Vobis]

You want me to give you one example of Catholics NOT calling a notorious heretic their Pope? Do you know what you are asking?

Yes, give me an example in history that EXACTLY matches our situation.  If you cannot, then the uniqueness of the situation should make you pause and wonder if your viewpoint has the certainty of faith which you assume it does. 

Secondly, your over-simplification of the current papal crisis mocks every theologian who ever spent decades of their life debating, praying and writing about such a situation.  You are basically saying that their life-long training, education and effort spent on this topic (and for some, that effort produced entire books on the topic) and it is worthless, since you, an untrained, uneducated layman, have "figured it all out" in a few years of months (and probably less). 

Finally, does it not ever cross your mind that if all the theologians who argued that a pope is not ipso facto deposed for heresy (and those theologians are many), that if they were as wrong as you say I am (and, logically, you must say they are), and if your (and St Robert Bellarmine's) view is as CLEAR and SIMPLE as you say it is, then why FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE WHY, did St Robert Bellarmine take the time, effort and energy to debate these theologians (both written and speaking)?  If they were SO CLEARLY WRONG, why didn't he just say, like you do, that "A true catholic never calls a notorius heretic their pope.  End of story."

How much time could he have saved?  Countless hours.  How much effort did he waste?  Wow, hard to calculate.  Probably years of his life.  He must be pretty stupid.  If this is the simple answer we've all been waiting for, why hasn't the Church condemned those theolgians who debated St Robert Bellarmine.  She could have done so quite easily, effortlessly and simply.  And, certainly, if the truth is as simple as you make it out to be, everyone should know it.

But alas, maybe the answer (using common sense) is that THE ISSUE OF A HERETICAL POPE IS NOT SO SIMPLE TO FIGURE OUT.  Golly, could THAT be the answer?

[Pax Vobis]

Saint Robert Bellarmine
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

And he continues:

"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity."

Yes, this is true but you are missing the points that:
1) the CHURCH has never spoken this clearly on the issue.  Therefore it's not settled.
2) the CHURCH has never said that St Robert Bellarmine is the "final" authority on the matter.  Therefore it's not settled.
3) Bellarmine continued to write, debate and discuss the issue...obviously, other theologians disagreed and brought up counter-points.

You are basically a catholic who follows only 1 theologian.  That's not how the Church operates.

[Pax Vobis]

One example would be Catholics not saying that Martin Luther was their Pope.

Oh, fantastic example (sarcasm alert).  I forgot that Martin Luther was elected pope, just like Francis was, and the entire catholic world thought he was head of the Church.  ???

Give me an example where a pope was elected and who was a heretic from the start.  You can't.  Because it's never happened before.

[Stubborn]

More garbage theology from the heretics' good subject...  

According to your logic, Saint Vincent is (was) not Catholic.  Own it, man

What I will own is the fact that that is how the dogmatic sedes view it because that is the thinking inherent in dogmatic sedeism. It is a part of the dogmatic sede faith to presuppose the pope is not the pope, yet for Catholics, it is equally just as much the contrary, i.e. the last thing any Catholic would ever dare to say. St. Vincent was most assuredly a Catholic saint, not a sede saint. If the dogmatic sedes would only leave Catholic saints out of it and use only their own saints, this whole issue would be taking a giant leap in the proper direction.    

[Cantarella]

Apostolicity of Mission is only half of it. Apostolicity of Doctrine is the other half. This is from the paragraph before the one you quoted.
If the Doctrine is not the same as had been transmitted from the Apostles, there is no Apostolicity or Apostolic Succession. Both are necessary. The "Orthodox" do not have Succession because they do not hand down the Deposit of Faith and teach contrary to it. The same goes for those in the Novus Ordo who still have valid orders but teach contrary to the Deposit of Faith.

True. Well, in sedeprivationism is this Apostolicity of Doctrine which is missing in the Novus Ordo; but it can be obtained or recovered once the heretic abjures his errors. 

Let me ask you something, what happens if a schismatic Bishop were to convert to Catholicism? It would work the same in the case of a Novus Ordo "converting" because the matter is already there. 

[Meg]

More garbage theology from the heretics' good subject...  

According to your logic, Saint Vincent is (was) not Catholic.  Own it, man

Do you believe that St. Vincent was a sedevacantist? Did he believe that the Seat of Peter was empty in his day, and had been empty for many years due to heresy?

[Pax Vobis]

Why don't you take the time to study Bellarmine instead of brushing him off like some second rate theology instructor at Notre Dame?? 

Why do you treat Bellarmine like an infallible diety?  Why do you ignore all those who disagree with him? 

[Pax Vobis]

AES: You are exactly correct. A heretic cannot be elected to the Papacy. I cannot cite an example of a heretic being elected to the Papacy because it cannot happen. A heretic is not Catholic and therefore cannot be Pope. So if it looks like one was elected we know it wasn't, because it can't.

Again, you (an uneducated, untrained layman) are correct and all those other learned clerics and theolgians are wrong.  Gotcha.

[Ladislaus]

What about the argument against the validity of orders in the NO?  I don't want to derail the thread, but one who believes in the sedeprivationism position would have to argue that the NO orders are valid, no?  

Not necessarily.  Designation to office can happen without the requisite orders required to exercise the office.  So, for instance, a Conclave could elect a simple priest who would at that point materially have the office but would not be able to exercise it formally until being consecrated a bishop.  Similarly, a Conclave could elect a mere layman.