[Ladislaus]

No?  Not ANYTHING?  Really?  

Well, then please do share with the forum what your pope Bergoglio could do, say or teach the universal Church that would give rise to your willingness to consider sedevacantism or at least not attack it and its adherents as rabidly as you do.

Or will you ignore this post too?

Yeah, that's a problem I see on both sides ... a "rabid", as you put it, refusal to even entertain the arguments being made by the other side.  That speaks volumes of some serious irrational and emotional attachments to one or another position.  Obviously, however, there are many reasonable people in each camp who are not quite so rabid.  And I was hoping that Father Chazal's position could be a bridge ... but that's never going to happen given how deeply entrenched some people are in their opinion.  Father Chazal put out a huge olive branch to sedevacantists ... admitting that Bergoglio is a public notorious manifest heretic of the first order, saying he wouldn't argue with the sedevacantists about that, since it's an unwinnable position, and then going on to state that these V2 papal claimants lack all authority (not just a sifted authority where Catholics pick and choose what they want to accept) but are just in a limbo material-occupancy state which awaits resolution by some authority in the Church.  What's wrong with that?  Even if you disagree, how can the dogmatic sedevacantists say that this is non-Catholic or heretical?

[2Vermont]

Yeah, that's a problem I see on both sides ... a "rabid", as you put it, refusal to even entertain the arguments being made by the other side.  That speaks volumes of some serious irrational and emotional attachments to one or another position.  Obviously, however, there are many reasonable people in each camp who are not quite so rabid.  And I was hoping that Father Chazal's position could be a bridge ... but that's never going to happen given how deeply entrenched some people are in their opinion.  Father Chazal put out a huge olive branch to sedevacantists ... admitting that Bergoglio is a public notorious manifest heretic of the first order, saying he wouldn't argue with the sedevacantists about that, since it's an unwinnable position, and then going on to state that these V2 papal claimants lack all authority (not just a sifted authority where Catholics pick and choose what they want to accept) but are just in a limbo material-occupancy state which awaits resolution by some authority in the Church.  What's wrong with that?  Even if you disagree, how can the dogmatic sedevacantists say that this is non-Catholic or heretical?

I said way up earlier in the thread that even those sedes that the anti-sedes believe are "dogmatic" DON'T believe this!  

If Fr Chazal actually believes in the Cassiciacuм Thesis (which I still question), then he believes the same thing that Bishop Sanborn believes.  Father Cekada disagrees with Bishop Sanborn and the CT and he DOES NOT BELIEVE that the CT is heresy! I don't know of ANY (well-known, knowledgeable) sede that thinks the CT is heresy.

I tend to think that it's the ANTI-SEDES who wish to create drama here where there is none.  Now why would they want to do that....hmmmm?  

[Ladislaus]

I don't know of ANY (well-known, knowledgeable) sede that thinks the CT is heresy.

Well, the Dimond Brothers of MHFM fame wrote me an e-mail telling me that I'm a heretic for agreeing with the Father Chazal position.  No, it's not 100% pure CT but reduces to the same thing for all intents and purposes.  He does not use the terms "formal" and "material" but goes on to describe exactly the same distinction.

[2Vermont]

Well, the Dimond Brothers of MHFM fame wrote me an e-mail telling me that I'm a heretic for agreeing with the Father Chazal position.  No, it's not 100% pure CT but reduces to the same thing for all intents and purposes.  He does not use the terms "formal" and "material" but goes on to describe exactly the same distinction.

Does Father Chazal believe that the post V2 popes are true or false?  If the former, then he does not believe in the CT.  If the latter, then he probably does.  It is my understanding that Fr Chazal is a Resistance priest.  As such I highly doubt it's the latter.  

Besides I thought Fr Cekada and Fr Chazal were at odds.  It would make no sense for Father Cekada to be at odds with Fr Chazal if Fr Chazal agreed with Bishop Sanborn on the CT.
  
The Dimond Brothers? Really?  They think everyone who doesn't subscribe to all that they believe is a heretic.

[Centroamerica]

I can’t believe people let Meg run amok on here. If I wasn’t sitting in a Houston airport on my phone, I’d quote and break down a lot of flub bub in what she arrogantly and childlishly asserts in a demeaning way. It wouldn’t surprise me if she is one of those that only discovered the Latin Mass since Summorum Pontificuм and therein lies her personal issue with the sede position. 

I’m no public proponent of the sede position, but I find it a credible position in this crisis and respect the clergy and Catholics that maintain that line. 

Meg asserts that no sede will ever come close to the pope like the Archbishop did. Surely, she has a crystal ball that tells her this. This crisis can go any kind of way. Sede groups have even come under modernist Rome in the past. The Society of St. Ferrer comes to mind. (Of course they changed their position.)

The Archbishop never said that JP 2 was a heretic, according to Meg. I’m pretty sure he did and was very open to the sede vacantist position. If she would have educated herself to even know the position of others who don’t hold her own position, (like by watching the video I posted on Archbishop Lefebvre) she would see that clearly. 

Separating oneself from devout and sincere Catholics and even attacking them with personal animosity (over issues like if Bergoglio, of all people, is a heretic OR NOT) is like a text book definition of schism.   

Just trying to be balanced and fair. 

[MyrnaM]

I think she is Bergoglio's long lost Aunt, Cousin, or some relative.

[TKGS]

Yeah, I'm a piece of work. At least I'm not a sede or a progressive, so I've at least got that going for me.  

"The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican."  Luke 18:11

[TKGS]

I don't know of ANY (well-known, knowledgeable) sede that thinks the CT is heresy.

Well, the Dimond Brothers of MHFM fame wrote me an e-mail telling me that I'm a heretic for agreeing with the Father Chazal position.  No, it's not 100% pure CT but reduces to the same thing for all intents and purposes.  He does not use the terms "formal" and "material" but goes on to describe exactly the same distinction.

Please re-read 2Vermont's post.  She said, "knowledgeable".

[Pax Vobis]

I personally believe that Siri was elected, and accepted, and only stepped aside uncanonically under duress, in 1958.  Any of the papal instructions prior to that stated that collusion in an election (and there is solid evidence of collusion to put Roncalli on the See) would invalidate the election.

I also agree that Siri stepped aside due to pressures.  Too much evidence suggests that something weird happened.  I've heard it said that he was elected/threatened/resigned in all of the elections of John, Paul, JPI and JPII.  And the masons wanted this to happen because they wanted an invalid/empty papacy.  Theres not a lot of concrete proof but there's a lot of circuмstantial evidence.  

[Pax Vobis]

I tend to think that it's the ANTI-SEDES who wish to create drama here where there is none.  Now why would they want to do that....hmmmm?  

Even if the entire trad world went with Fr Chazal'a view, something tells me that Fr Cekada would stir up discord with some obscure, theological detail (like 'una cuм').  He just has an air of overblown superiority about him his track record of promoting harmony is very poor.  

[MyrnaM]

In spite of all this ... you and so many still believe the chair is not empty, empty of a True Pope. 

Sedeprivationism is a term coined by British traditionalist Catholic theologian William J. Morgan;
Material, Pope or other novel terms created to explain an agenda just because it makes you all feel smarter, I suppose is the reason.  Not sure, just my opinion why all these terms have been created.

At least the term "sedevacantist" in spite of roscoe, is a Catholic term, the Vatican even issued a Vatican stamp proclaiming "sedevacantist".  Look it up!  Issued way before Vatican II.  

It doesn't mean the Papacy has failed, it means just the opposite.  People like Meg believes the Papacy has failed or those who still believe that Francis can be a pope of both truth and error, just because! 
However, they can't find anything Truthful anymore that Francis stands for, so I guess lately they believe he is just a pope of error.  Truth flew out the window with the Holy Ghost when John XXIII opened the windows.  

[sedevacantist3]

Bottom line for my position:

Sedevacantists are correct in stating that R&R have a warped, even non-Catholic, view of and attitude towards the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church, essentially having these defect.  They reduce the authority of the Magisterium and infallibility to a mere tautology:  it's infallible it it's true and non-infallible if it's wrong.

R&R are correct in the criticism of sedevacantism that it simply cannot be left up to individual Catholics, shooting from the hip, to consider popes they don't agree with deposed.  They are also correct that maintstream sedevacantism leads to an ecclesiavacantist situation and defection of the hierarchy.

It's precisely because I see the legitimacy of these arguments that I find the Father Chazal position and the sedeprivationist positions to be most Catholic.  Now, the only other alternative I see is just to fully accept the NO hierarchy, apply a hermeneutic of continuity to the V2 teachings, go to an Eastern or Tridentine liturgy due to personal preference, and argue against the abuses in the NOM.

shooting from the hip is not what the sedevacantist position is about, I don't know how much clearer it can get that this  non Catholic heretic from hell cannot be the leader of the Church of Christ
Pope Pius IV,
Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in general it
seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the
sacrament of order.
It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and
appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of
faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic
truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.”

[MyrnaM]

So you believe that the Holy Roman Church defected.

Actually you are the one who believes the Roman Church has defected and can lead souls to Hell with their TURN. 
We don't believe that.   The ones who have LEFT/changed are the ones who have, defected/DESERTED!  Possession does not mean ownership.  

[2Vermont]

Even if the entire trad world went with Fr Chazal'a view, something tells me that Fr Cekada would stir up discord with some obscure, theological detail (like 'una cuм').  He just has an air of overblown superiority about him his track record of promoting harmony is very poor.  

If Fr Chazal's position is wrong, then I would expect Fr Cekada not to go along with it.

By the way, have you found proof yet for your accusations earlier up the thread that Fr Cekada and Bishop Sanborn call those with different positions (like Fr Chazal) "heretics"?   

Also, this thread is not about una cuм masses.  

Why do you say these things about them and continually bring up una cuм?  Perhaps to sow more discord? 

[2Vermont]

I can’t believe people let Meg run amok on here. If I wasn’t sitting in a Houston airport on my phone, I’d quote and break down a lot of flub bub in what she arrogantly and childlishly asserts in a demeaning way. It wouldn’t surprise me if she is one of those that only discovered the Latin Mass since Summorum Pontificuм and therein lies her personal issue with the sede position.

I’m no public proponent of the sede position, but I find it a credible position in this crisis and respect the clergy and Catholics that maintain that line.

Meg asserts that no sede will ever come close to the pope like the Archbishop did. Surely, she has a crystal ball that tells her this. This crisis can go any kind of way. Sede groups have even come under modernist Rome in the past. The Society of St. Ferrer comes to mind. (Of course they changed their position.)

The Archbishop never said that JP 2 was a heretic, according to Meg. I’m pretty sure he did and was very open to the sede vacantist position. If she would have educated herself to even know the position of others who don’t hold her own position, (like by watching the video I posted on Archbishop Lefebvre) she would see that clearly.

Separating oneself from devout and sincere Catholics and even attacking them with personal animosity (over issues like if Bergoglio, of all people, is a heretic OR NOT) is like a text book definition of schism.  

Just trying to be balanced and fair.

:applause:

By the way, thanks for clearing up where you stand on the Crisis.  I had always thought you were Resistance but your latest posts made me wonder.