[Meg]

Making Archbishop Lefebvre out to be a sedevacantist is deceitful. Not surprising, though, that Fr, Cekada would resort to doing such a deceitful thing. He has misled so many people. 

[Pax Vobis]

Yes, I am undecided but we all should be, because the Church has not spoken.  I do lean one way, definitely avoid "dogmatism" on the issue because none of us will ever know for sure until 1) we live through the upcoming chastisement and the church returns to sanity and tells us or 2) we can ask God in heaven.  

I do think the debate is fun but I still take it serious.  LastDays, I did not mean to misinterpret your postings.  That doesn't solve anything and I find it a waste of time.  

[Meg]

Meg, sedeprivationism is NOT sedevacantism.  Please calm down.  Maybe you'd understand if you watched the video??

Sedeprivationism is a form of sedevacantism. Your form of sedeism says that the pope is the pope, but he has little jurisdiction. What is the use of saying at all that the pope is the pope if he has little jurisdiction? It boils down to the same thing as the regular old sedevacantism.

I'm going to keep referring to sedeprivationism as sedevacantism.

And no, I haven't watched the first part of Father's video. I'm not a fan of sede propaganda.

[Pax Vobis]

No, exactly the opposite.  He has earthly, governmental jurisdiction because he's still sitting in Rome.  But he has no spiritual authority because his heresies have made him impotent and we must separate from a heretic.  

[Meg]

No, exactly the opposite.  He has earthly, governmental jurisdiction because he's still sitting in Rome.  But he has no spiritual authority because his heresies have made him impotent and we must separate from a heretic.  

You sedevacantist privationists need to be consistent in what your brand of sedevacantism is exactly. Ladislaus also considers himself to be a sedeprivationist, but he also believes that I am a heretic if I believe that Francis has jurisdiction.

Ladislaus too believes that Fr. Chazal backs up sedeprivationism. Not good. 

[Pax Vobis]

Haha.  You may be right - it can confusing!

[Cantarella]

You sedevacantist privationists need to be consistent in what your brand of sedevacantism is exactly. Ladislaus also considers himself to be a sedeprivationist, but he also believes that I am a heretic if I believe that Francis has jurisdiction.

Ladislaus too believes that Fr. Chazal backs up sedeprivationism. Not good.

Sedeprivationism is indeed a form of sedevacantism. In the thesis, the conciliar popes are NOT true popes, because the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church prevent us from saying that a true pope could ever promulgate false teachings, false liturgy, evil disciplines, etc. The errors that traditionalists perceive "officially" emanating from Vatican II.

The distinction is that among sedevacantists, there are "totalists" and "material-formalists" (also, those who can be said to be merely "opinionists" but still attending the SSPX, or such). The totalists say that Bergolio is not pope in any way, that is, he has neither the papal jurisdiction nor even a valid election. The material-formalists (this is, the sedeprivationists) say that he is not the pope because he lacks the jurisdiction, but that he does possess a valid election, and therefore, have the potential to become the pope.

[Meg]

Sedeprivationism is indeed a form of sedevacantism. In the thesis, the conciliar popes are NOT true popes, because the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church prevent us from saying that a true pope could ever promulgate false teachings, false liturgy, evil disciplines, etc. The errors that traditionalists perceive "officially" emanating from Vatican II.

The distinction is that among sedevacantists, there are "totalists" and "material-formalists" (also, those who can be said to be merely "opinionists" but still attending the SSPX, or such). The totalists say that Bergolio is not pope in any way, that is, he has neither the papal jurisdiction nor even a valid election. The material-formalists (this is, the sedeprivationists) say that he is not the pope because he lacks the jurisdiction, but that he does possess a valid election, and therefore, have the potential to become the pope.

I appreciate your explanation, and your agreement that sedeprivationism is a form of sedevacantism. 

The two main branches of sedevacantism seem to be the 'totalists,' and the 'material-formalists,' though I think that there are other branches as well. 

I don't recall that Archbishop Lefebvre made the 'material-formalist' distinction, in regards to the conciliar Popes. He seemed to differentiate between the conciliar church and the Catholic Church (conciliar Rome and eternal Rome). The sedevacantists (of whatever branch) don't seem to make this distinction. 

[MyrnaM]

Meg you keep talking about Archbishop Lefebvre but he has been dead now for over 1/4 of a century;  a lot has happened since then.  

If he is as smart as you say, today he would be a sedevacantist.  

[Meg]

Meg you keep talking about Archbishop Lefebvre but he has been dead now for over 1/4 of a century;  a lot has happened since then.  

If he is as smart as you say, today he would be a sedevacantist.  

Archbishop Lefebvre dealt with the popes personally. No sede has ever done that, or ever will.  And yet, even though he suffered directly at the hands of the pope who pronounced his unjust excommunication, the Archbishop did not declare him a heretic. The archbishop was prudent - something that many sedes cannot fathom. 

[MyrnaM]

The Archbishop is dead and might be the reason God took him; God wanted to see the SSPX and people like you stand up yourself for the truth.  Have you ever heard of the "dark night of the soul?"

God wants us to stand up on our own!

[Meg]

The Archbishop is dead and might be the reason God took him; God wanted to see the SSPX and people like you stand up yourself for the truth.  Have you ever heard of the "dark night of the soul?"

God wants us to stand up on our own!

So you think that God wants us to judge the situation on our own, without the sound teaching of an Archbishop who was at the forefront of the battle for Tradition?

We aren't protestants or anarchists who have no one above us to guide us. We don't invent truth, and we don't have to figure it out all on our own, regarding how to deal with the Crisis. We can follow the good lead of an Archbishop who was a good example of prudence and fidelity to Tradition.

[Meg]

AeS,

I'm not going to respond to your quote above.

[2Vermont]

So you think that God wants us to judge the situation on our own, without the sound teaching of an Archbishop who was at the forefront of the battle for Tradition?

We aren't protestants or anarchists who have no one above us to guide us. We don't invent truth, and we don't have to figure it out all on our own, regarding how to deal with the Crisis. We can follow the good lead of an Archbishop who was a good example of prudence and fidelity to Tradition.

A Lefebrvist.

[2Vermont]

AeS,

I'm not going to respond to your quote above.

Of course you aren't.