[Ladislaus]

So, if a pope says heresy, first you said he retains his dignity until the clergy removes him and he retains his material office (I agree with this).  Then you DISAGREED WITH YOURSELF, and you said the dignity is just a 'false dignity' and he has the material office but not a right to it (not sure I understand the difference.)  Then you said he can't hold the material office because a heretic can't hold office.

That's because they don't understand the difference between formally holding office and materially holding it.

[Ladislaus]

The hierarchy is competent to decide.  The hierarchy consists of all those clergy who are actually Catholic, who profess the Catholic faith.  And if there is some disagreement within the hierarchy, and there is no definitive authority who can settle the dispute (i.e. the Pope), then a general council should be held and it should be determined by a vote.  But I think that a general council is not absolutely necessary.  If the Catholic clergy of the Roman province decide that the man wearing a white cassock is actually a usurping non-Catholic, then they are certainly competent to resolve the issue themselves.  But prior to a resolution it is possible to discuss the situation and even make accusations without thereby causing a schism.  There is an objective reality and we can grasp it with our intellects.  Is Frank Catholic?  Don't say, "Who am I to judge."

Indeed, the hierarchy has to decide.  And that's my point.  As of this moment in time, the hierarchy has not decided this.  So we're in a limbo state.  We must posit at least that there's positive doubt regarding their legitimacy in order to refuse submission to them ... but we're still SHORT of having any authoritative decision on the matter.  Sure we can have our opinion about it.  Indeed, every accusation of heresy STARTS with someone forming an opinion about it.  In a more normal time in the Church, the consensus of heresy would have built up very quickly against the likes of a Bergoglio.  Then, at that point, what if he were to recant in the face of this consensus?  There are all kinds of complexities here and it's not nearly as simple as papa haereticus ipso facto depositus.

[Ladislaus]

There's a six-page docuмent on the Dominicans of Avrille website, called "A refutation of sedevacantism."

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/refutation-of-sedevacantism/

Fine, but in order to refuse submission to these popes, one has to at least formulate a positive doubt regarding their legitimacy ... as Father Chazal goes on to state.  Father Chazal holds that they have lost any and all formal authority.  Problem with standard R&R, and the reason why sedevacantists so violently (and rightly) reject it, is that they posit that legitimate popes can promulgate a harmful and defective universal discipline (Mass) and teach error to the Church in an order of magnitude where submission to the Magisterium can harm people's faith.  In other words, standard R&R posits that submission to the Church's Magisterium can be harmful to the faith and that it can be required of Catholics to categorically reject it.  In other words, the battle here is about the indefectibility of the Church and about our duty to submit to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church ... and not some quibble of opinions regarding what happens to a heretical pope.

[Meg]

That's because they don't understand the difference between formally holding office and materially holding it.

It isn't necessary to understand the difference, because it's a made-up difference/theory held by you sedevacantist-privationists. It's a false distinction.

There's essentially no difference, that I can see, between you and the full-on sedevacantists. You believe that the current pope has no jurisdiction, and as such, it means that he's pope in name only with absolutely no authority. He might as well be a ghost. This isn't any different from what the dogmatic sedes believe and what you believe, practically speaking.

[Ladislaus]

If they said that a true Pope could be deposed by a council, then they should be considered heretics (absolutely).

 Please learn to understand the distinctions involved.  According to them, only God can depose a pope authoritatively (formally) whereas the Church deposes ministerially (materially) or, rather, declares or recognizes them as deposed.

[Meg]

Fine, but in order to refuse submission to these popes, one has to at least formulate a positive doubt regarding their legitimacy ... as Father Chazal goes on to state.  Father Chazal holds that they have lost any and all formal authority.  Problem with standard R&R, and the reason why sedevacantists so violently (and rightly) reject it, is that they posit that legitimate popes can promulgate a harmful and defective universal discipline (Mass) and teach error to the Church in an order of magnitude where submission to the Magisterium can harm people's faith.  In other words, standard R&R posits that submission to the Church's Magisterium can be harmful to the faith and that it can be required of Catholics to categorically reject it.  In other words, the battle here is about the indefectibility of the Church and about our duty to submit to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church ... and not some quibble of opinions regarding what happens to a heretical pope.

I don't care what Fr. Chazal says on the matter. I know that you sedevacantist-privationists are doing the happy-dance because you think that Fr. Chazal is on your team. Maybe he is. So what. That doesn't make sedevacanist-privationism true. 

[Ladislaus]

The problem lies in the fact that a notorious heretic has no right to a material office, dignity, recognition etc. (as far as a Catholic is concerned).

Nobody's saying they have a right to it.  But until the Church withdraws the recognition of their de facto possession of it, they retain de facto possession ... even if they have lost de iure possession.  Then you use terms like "dignity" and "recognition" ambiguously.  When I refuse submission to them, I am refusing to recognize their formal authority.

[Ladislaus]

I don't care what Fr. Chazal says on the matter. I know that you sedevacantist-privationists are doing the happy-dance because you think that Fr. Chazal is on your team. Maybe he is. So what. That doesn't make sedevacanist-privationism true.

Your consistently emotional responses demonstrate that you have no business on this thread and very little positive contribution to make.  You clearly have some deep emotional attachment to your position and resent that sedeprivationists are doing a "happy-dance" and are splitting people up into "teams".  You're clearly emotionally invested in whatever you believe, and until you can get past that you'll never find the truth.

With regard to Father Chazal, I simply found his rational and balanced approach to the question refreshing and I saw his position as having the potential to unite Traditional Catholics who are otherwise divided on this issue ... by introducing some appropriate distinctions.  I am on nobody's "team" ... except hopefully God's.  I am routinely attacked by R&R types like yourself as well as by sedevacantists, and so this is an extremely tiny team that I'm on.

[Meg]

Your consistently emotional responses demonstrate that you have no business on this thread and very little positive contribution to make.  You clearly have some deep emotional attachment to your position and resent that sedeprivationists are doing a "happy-dance" and are splitting people up into "teams".  You're clearly emotionally invested in whatever you believe, and until you can get past that you'll never find the truth.

With regard to Father Chazal, I simply found his rational and balanced approach to the question refreshing and I saw his position as having the potential to unite Traditional Catholics who are otherwise divided on this issue ... by introducing some appropriate distinctions.  I am on nobody's "team" ... except hopefully God's.  I am routinely attacked by R&R types like yourself as well as by sedevacantists, and so this is an extremely tiny team that I'm on.

You don't like what I'm saying, so you play the "emotional" card. Well, I'm going to keep posting on the thread, Ladislaus. That's just how it is.

And people here are already split into teams, and much of that is your doing, though it's not only you. The other sedevacantists are at fault, too. Sedevacantism-privationism is wrong. It just appears to be a milder form of dogmatic sedevacantism, but it's the same thing in reality. 

[Ladislaus]

You don't like what I'm saying, so you play the "emotional" card. Well, I'm going to keep posting on the thread, Ladislaus. That's just how it is.

Your last post was 100% emotion and had 0 substance to it.  "I don't care what Father Chazal says" and ranting about "happy-dances" and whose team someone is on.  I might care about WHAT your saying if more than 10% of your posts had some substance to them and weren't just petulant emotional rants.  Stubborn is the same way.

[Ladislaus]

And people here are already split into teams, and much of that is your doing, though it's not only you.

  That's laughable.  These "teams" far predate any of my posts; they've been around for decades.  Then you go on to blame sedeprivationists-sedevacantists for the divisions but refuse to look in the mirror and lay ANY fault whatsoever with any of the R&R.  Well, let me hold that mirror up for you.  These sedevacantists/privationists have a healthy sense for the indefectibility of the Church, her Magisterium and her Universal Discipline, which you R&R types have completely undermined.  Consequently, they find you abhorrent ... as do I.

[Ladislaus]

The other sedevacantists are at fault, too. Sedevacantism-privationism is wrong. It just appears to be a milder form of dogmatic sedevacantism, but it's the same thing in reality.

No, honey, R&R is heretical crap.  Sure, there are problems with sedevacantism but they pale in comparison.  Uhm, you have no idea what the term "dogmatic" sedevacantism means to suggest that this is a "milder" form of it.  Almost by definition, if it's "milder", then it's not exactly dogmatic anymore.  Just take your petulant emotionalism back to promoting Flat Earth theory.

[Ladislaus]

It isn't necessary to understand the difference, because it's a made-up difference/theory held by you sedevacantist-privationists. It's a false distinction.

There's essentially no difference, that I can see, between you and the full-on sedevacantists. You believe that the current pope has no jurisdiction, and as such, it means that he's pope in name only with absolutely no authority. He might as well be a ghost. This isn't any different from what the dogmatic sedes believe and what you believe, practically speaking.

I hold that he maintains (material aspects of) jurisidction.  But if he has authority, then what does that make you?  I'll tell you.  It makes you a schismatic for refusing submission to said authority and a heretic for rejecting the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline.  I'll take being mistaken about the identity of the pope over that any day.

[Pax Vobis]

Meg, I know you're a big follower of +ABL (and I am too, in most areas) but *sometimes* you can't make a decision about the current state of affairs based on an opinion that is decades old.  +ABL kicked the tires of sedevacantism back in the day but he didn't want to cross that line due to being cautious.  That's fine.

But I'll bet a lot of money that if he were alive today, he'd agree with the material/formal distinction.  He was pretty smart and theology interested him.  And with Pope Francis, its hard not to say he's completely lost it.  A few decades ago, we were dealing with JPII who was very crafty.  Francis is just too open about his antics.  

As Fr Chazal even admitted, the sspx is 'behind the times' when studying this issue because they've spent most of their time taking care of the essentials - mass, sacraments, schools, etc.  They've stuck with +ABLs stance partly out of habit and partly due to being busy.  

The real question I have is, what does +Williamson think?  It's hard to disagree with Fr Chazal's research...he's a smart cookie.  

[Stubborn]

  Problem with standard R&R, and the reason why sedevacantists so violently (and rightly) reject it, is that they posit that legitimate popes can promulgate a harmful and defective universal discipline (Mass) and teach error to the Church in an order of magnitude where submission to the Magisterium can harm people's faith.  In other words, standard R&R posits that submission to the Church's Magisterium can be harmful to the faith and that it can be required of Catholics to categorically reject it.  In other words, the battle here is about the indefectibility of the Church and about our duty to submit to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church ... and not some quibble of opinions regarding what happens to a heretical pope.

Your idea of R&R is completely screwed up.

As a matter of Catholic fact, submission to the Magisterium is wholly necessary and can never be harmful to people's faith, to reject the Magisterium is to lose the faith. This simple foundational truth is part of the faith and always will be.  

You imagine, as you said earlier, the Magisterium is both infallible and not infallible or as you said, "non-infallible magisterium", which is to say the Magisterium can teach both truth and error, then you accuse R&R of the novel term, "magisterium sifting". According to your idea of the Magisterium, how else are we expected to determine which is which without sifting?

If the Magisterium is as you say, then we ALL must sift the magisterium lest we submit to the non-infallible (read: error / non-binding) part of the Magisterium. We have no other choice, according to your idea of the Magisterium that is.

Then you toss in our duty to submit to the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church, which is to say we must submit to the whole Magisterium, both infallible (truth) and non-infallible (error / non-binding) Magisterium, yet you say to sift which is which, that is to say, to sift between the infallible (truth) and non-infallible (error / non-binding) magisterium is heresy. What you never do is tell us how else are we to know which is which without sifting? We cannot depend on the infallible part of the Magisterium to tell us because what we think is infallible may well be non-infallible - according to your idea.

As I said, you toss in our duty to submit to the Church's Universal Discipline which is derived from the Magisterium. Well, who is to say that today's Universal Discipline was not derived from the non-infallible (error) Magisterium? According to your understanding, it appears today's Universal Discipline is part of the non-infallible (error) Magisterium because obviously, today's Universal Discipline is riddled with errors and heresies - apparently you understand this because of that evil magisterium sifting, which you say is heresy.

Setting aside for now how this whole idea of yours obviously decimates the Church's indefectibility, this sufficiently sums up your confusion as regards R&R, Magisterium sifting, Magisterium, and Universal Discipline.