[Meg]

R&R is like 'conservative'; it means something different to everyone.  +ABL's stance was very similar to Fr Chazal's - +ABL just didn't take the time to explain it, or use a fancy new term.  +ABL was the one who, after repeated dealings with new-rome, said that they must not 'make a deal' with new-rome until they convert.  He was already saying, indirectly, that the pope/new-rome was to be treated as if they are 'impounded'.  He said that 'new-rome does not have the faith'.  His actions, whereby he ordained new priests and bishops, further prove that he separated himself from rome's heresies, which is a main point of sedeprivationism.

The REAL problem has been +Fellay, who has corrupted +ABL's view and approach to new-rome and has continued to operate in the dangerous, gray area.  He has continued his progressive approach towards heresy and has continued to redefine everything +ABL stood and worked for.  +Fellay has given R&R a bad name and he has corrupted it's meaning, and therefore, it's only practical to discard this term and use a new one.

Fr Chazal is attempting to re-clarify, re-teach and return to ABL's original stance.  Many of his points were implicit in +ABL's original stance, but now that he has spent the time he can expand on +ABL's 'summary' ideals and give more complete and historical reasons.

No, the Archbishop was not a sedevacantist privationist. He warned of the errors of sedevacantism, over and over again. Your view is actually the more dangerous of the sede positions, because you now implicate Archbishop Lefebvre in your error.

I hope that you will read the Refutation of Sedevacantism, which has a lot of info about the Archbishop's stance:

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

[Cantarella]

No, the Archbishop was not a sedevacantist privationist. He warned of the errors of sedevacantism, over and over again. Your view is actually the more dangerous of the sede positions, because you now implicate Archbishop Lefebvre in your error.

I hope that you will read the Refutation of Sedevacantism, which has a lot of info about the Archbishop's stance:

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

On this we agree. That was precisely the reason why Archbishop Lefebvre removed Fr. Guerard Des Lauriers from his seminary. It was when Des Lauriers presented his thesis that the Chair of Peter might be vacant because Paul VI was guilty of heresy (sedeprivationism) that he lost his position as a lecturer and professor at the SSPX seminary in Econe, Switzerland.

[Pax Vobis]

Let's see here...Am I a dogmatic seat?  I'm gonna say no to that one, man...

That's fantastic.  Then we are more friends than enemies.  We may not agree with each other's opinions (or the opinions of the theolgians we prefer) but we recognize that they are just opinions, with limitations. 

[Pax Vobis]

I went back and looked, but I don't see where Lastdays claims that Pope Liberius was a heretic...

I don't want to waste time arguing about what LastDays thinks; he doesn't even know. 

[Pax Vobis]

I hope that you will read the Refutation of Sedevacantism, which has a lot of info about the Archbishop's stance:

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

This paper, while very general, agrees with Fr Chazal, who spoke on the topic in much more detail. 

[Pax Vobis]

"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic." 

Bellator, I'm sorry, this was YOUR quote (of Bellarmine), not LastDays.  I debated your interpretation of it, but you didn't answer about 30 pages ago and LastDays did, so i forgot who originally posted it.

Liberius was not a heretic, though that was only known later.  At the time of Liberius, Bellarmine says that we must judge him by his external acts.  Ok, fine.  My point is that who judged him?  Was it joesixpack?  Was it one bishop?  Was it 4 priests?  No, the ROMAN CLERGY STRIPPED LIBERIUS OF HIS PONTIFICAL DIGNITY.

So, this argument goes to prove that the Church must act in some capacity before we can declare (with certainty) a pope is no longer pope.  Until he is removed, he's still considered the pope.  Even Bellarmine's example proves this.

[Pax Vobis]

.

[Pax Vobis]

You shouldn't discuss Bellarmine's position anymore until you read it, and understand it.

I get it.  Just pointing out that the example he used in this case was a poor one.  Didn't prove his point at all.

[Meg]

This paper, while very general, agrees with Fr Chazal, who spoke on the topic in much more detail.

I don't care anymore about what Fr. Chazal has to say on the subject, since you have made him out to be a sedevacantist. And if he is one, then that's a problem, but not one that I'm willing to get into on this thread. 

Where does the paper advocate sedevacantism as you do? Have you read the ENTIRE docuмent? It's six pages long.

[Pax Vobis]

Meg,
If you haven't listened to Fr Chazal's entire video, then please stop responding as if you have.  No one is making him out to be a sedevacantist and this is obviously a 'trigger word' for you, so maybe you shouldn't discuss it?

[Meg]

Meg,
If you haven't listened to Fr Chazal's entire video, then please stop responding as if you have.  No one is making him out to be a sedevacantist and this is obviously a 'trigger word' for you, so maybe you shouldn't discuss it?

You are using Fr. Chazal to promote sedevacantism. That's a low thing to do, but not surprising for sedes like youself. Sedes misrepresent nearly everything they attempt to quote or use to justify sedeism. Therefore, I will not now watch the entire video.

It's up to you to refute the docuмent I linked to.

I will keep discussing it.

[Pax Vobis]

If you haven't watched the video, then you don't know if the letter agrees with Fr Chazal or not.  Good golly.

[Meg]

You are using Fr. Chazal to promote sedevacantism. That's a low thing to do, but not surprising for sedes like youself. Sedes misrepresent nearly everything they attempt to quote or use to justify sedeism. Therefore, I will not now watch the entire video.

It's up to you to refute the docuмent I linked to.

I will keep discussing it.

*deleted*

[Meg]

If you haven't watched the video, then you don't know if the letter agrees with Fr Chazal or not.  Good golly.

I'm not interested in whether or not the docuмent agrees with what Fr. Chazal says.

The docuмent shows Archbishop Lefebvre's view of sedevacantism, which most of the Resistance is maintaining.

[Pax Vobis]

Proclaiming that a notorious heretic IS a true Pope (such as what you are doing in regards to Bergoglio), is exactly the opposite of what a Catholic should do.

Who decides if Francis is a notorius heretic?  THIS IS THE QUESTION.  You?  Me?  2 priests in Somalia?  A sedevacantist chapel?
Bellarmine didn't address this.  Suarez, Cajetan "filled in the blanks" and said that THE CHURCH must decide if the pope is a notorius heretic.  No one else can decide this.