[Pax Vobis]

If you put any moral obligation (i.e. under pain of sin or heresy) on anyone to believe sedevacantism, (in any form, in any degree), then you are extreme and dogmatic.
If you put any moral obligation (i.e. under pain of sin or heresy) on anyone to believe R&R, (in any form, in any degree), then you are extreme and dogmatic.

No catholic, anywhere, has to accept either sedevacantism, sedeplenisim, R&R, etc, etc.  There is no moral obligation to even make a decision on the matter (except for the hierarchy, whose job it is to protect the Faith and if they don't clear up these matters, they will be judged on that).  The only moral obligation that trad catholics have is to 1) follow the 10 commands and laws of the church and 2) believe all those dogmas of the faith which the Church has taught us.  The issue of the papacy is a fun and interesting topic to discuss but that's the extent of it.  One can easily stick with tradition and ignore the papal problems and save their soul.  God's not going to ask us on judgement day of our opinion on the pope (because our opinion is meaningless).  He's going to ask us how well we loved Him, by keeping His commandments and keeping the faith.  The problems in rome are no one's to decide or fix, except the Church.  And none of us in tradition are the Church.

[Stubborn]

If you put any moral obligation (i.e. under pain of sin or heresy) on anyone to believe sedevacantism, (in any form, in any degree), then you are extreme and dogmatic.
If you put any moral obligation (i.e. under pain of sin or heresy) on anyone to believe R&R, (in any form, in any degree), then you are extreme and dogmatic.

No catholic, anywhere, has to accept either sedevacantism, sedeplenisim, R&R, etc, etc.  There is no moral obligation to even make a decision on the matter (except for the hierarchy, whose job it is to protect the Faith and if they don't clear up these matters, they will be judged on that).  The only moral obligation that trad catholics have is to 1) follow the 10 commands and laws of the church and 2) believe all those dogmas of the faith which the Church has taught us.  The issue of the papacy is a fun and interesting topic to discuss but that's the extent of it.  One can easily stick with tradition and ignore the papal problems and save their soul.  God's not going to ask us on judgement day of our opinion on the pope (because our opinion is meaningless).  He's going to ask us how well we loved Him, by keeping His commandments and keeping the faith.  The problems in rome are no one's to decide or fix, except the Church.  And none of us in tradition are the Church.

Well said!   :applause:

[Cantarella]

That idea still makes no sense, at the very least it is ambiguous. The Church, which is Christ, is infallible and indefectible, why does he limit it to what appears to be inside only one Church or diocese of Rome and who is the author you quoted that attributes this to St. Robert?
 

The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma and it was formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.

[Stubborn]

The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma and it was formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.

Unlike the quote from Hermengild, that ^^^ makes complete sense.

[Pax Vobis]

This needs WAY more context.  1 quote doesn't cut it. 

[Meg]

 If God does have to intervene, it will not go well for the conciliar pretender to the Papacy and his subjects (which will include all who acknowledge the pretender as "Pope").

You believe that it will not go well for those of us who believe that the Pope is the Pope, if God has to intervene? What is God going to do to us, exactly? You seem to have it all figured out.

Lastdays, you sometimes sound as if you believe that you have a direct line to the mind of God. Do you consider yourself a prophet of God, or something like that? 

[Cantarella]

And this goes to show that +Bellarmine is wrong on this point, as his arguments are based on Luke 22 and a history of no heretical popes.  In his time, his arguments make sense.

Fast forward to today, and adding in V1 and V2, and his opinion is completely unfounded.
1.  Luke 22, which is a general statement, and unexplained by Christ, was explained by V1.
2.  V2 and the popes of this era have shown it possible that a pope is a heretic.

That is not solely based on Luke 22; but many other verses as well (John 14:16; Matt. 16; Matt.28, Eph. 4:10, 17, Psalm 2, Eph 5). That the Church, and her Rector, the Roman Pontiff cannot err in matters of Faith is proved by many reasons. Read the annotations of 1 Timothy 3:15, where the Church is called the "pillar and ground of truth". Part of it says:

Christ has prayed for it, that it be sanctified in verity, that the faith of the chief Governor thereof fail not: it is his house, his spouse his body, his lot, his kingdom and inheritance, given him in this world: he loveth it as his own flesh, and it cannot be divorced or separated from him; therefore it cannot err.

The Vicar of Christ's Faith cannot fail. Therefore, as soon as his Faith fails, he is no longer the Vicar of Christ, although I do believe that there is a need for some legal recognition by competent Authority that makes it known that this has already occurred. This is in line with Sedeprivationism.  

[Meg]

That would be up to God. The Novus Ordo "scoffers" say pretty much the same thing. Sadly, you align yourself with them and not Catholics.

Funny how you questioned me, but not Pax Vobis who just said...

"God's not going to ask us on judgement day of our opinion on the pope (because our opinion is meaningless)."

Does Pax have a direct line to the mind of God?

Does Pax consider himself a prophet of God?

Your questioning of me and not Pax clearly shows your bias, and that none of your views can be taken seriously by anyone of good will.

One does not have to be a prophet to know that things do not ultimately end up well for notorious heretics and their supporters. One just needs a little Catholic common sense. Something you are currently lacking.

You have no idea what God will do to us, but you know that it will not go well. How do you know that? Is that what your friends at Novus Ordo Watch teach?

[Meg]

As usual, you don't read a word of what I post. You like to read your own posts, and posts of those who agree with you. As I said, my comment in regards to "things not going well for notorious heretics and their supporters" was based on Catholic common sense. Not on prophecy or Novus Ordo watch or anything else.

It's not Catholic common sense to anathematize Catholics who don't agree with you. It may be sede sense, but it's not any kind of Catholic sense. 

[Meg]

It is certainly not common sense to anathematize Catholics. I do no such thing. I anathematize those who preach a false gospel and their supporters, as I am supposed to...

[6] I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:6-9)

You sound like a Baptist street corner preacher, Mr. Prophet Lastdays, since you seem to know the mind of God better than Holy Mother Church.

[Pax Vobis]

Ok, then GREAT!  We are all in agreement (generally speaking) with Fr Chazal - some form of sedeprivationism.

2Vermont, what say you?

[Meg]

Ok, then GREAT!  We are all in agreement (generally speaking) with Fr Chazal - some form of sedeprivationism.

2Vermont, what say you?

Has Fr. Chazal stated that he is some form of sedeprivationist? 

[Pax Vobis]

There's various names for it, so I don't want to get caught up in semantics, but, generally speaking, yes.

[Meg]

There's various names for it, so I don't want to get caught up in semantics, but, generally speaking, yes.

So what has Fr. Chazal specifically stated his position to be exactly? Sede....what?

[Pax Vobis]

He didn't give a name for it.  He just explained his view, in depth, in the video.  You should watch it - 2 hrs long, but you can split it up.  Very informative, lots of history and he's a good public speaker, so enjoyable.