[2Vermont]

Using your logic, if I'm supposed to ignore his indirect implications and the conclusions of his logic because he didn't 'say it directly' then we must also ignore the indirect implications of V2 and we must ignore the conclusions its texts lead to because it didn't 'say anything directly' contrary to the Faith.

It's called "reading between the lines".  

Further, he says that the sspx masses and other independent masses commit sin because they are not in obedience to their local bishop.  (Pg 11 at the bottom)

He says they have no jurisdiction which is also another sin (top left, pg 12) and their masses "have no efficacy".  He says their masses are "gravely illicit".  

He also is in disagreement with the Cassiciacuм theory (bottom pg 15) and says the material/formal distinction doesn't change the 'una cuм' problems.  

Pg 16 - those who attend an 'una cuм' mass participates in a pernicious lie, in communion with heretics, in the profession of a false religion.

I could go on?  Have you read this docuмent ever?  Or in a while?  It's not ambiguous at all.  It's basically saying "outside sedevacantism there is no salvation!"   That's not an exaggeration.  It's all there in his 19 pg docuмent...

It's obvious that you aren't using any logic.  

Yes, I have read this docuмent and it has always been clear to me that he is talking to sedes.  None of your examples say "outside sedevacantism there is no salvation".  They don't even hint at it.  Saying someone or something is sinful, illicit, etc does not equate to saying someone or something is "heresy". Being in disagreement with the CT doesn't mean the CT is heresy.  Furthermore, when he speaks of "those attending una cuм masses" he is talking to ME, NOT YOU.  You keep trying to turn this into something it is not.  

At this point, you must be willfully blind....blinded by your hatred for Father Cekada. 

[TKGS]

At this point, you must be willfully blind....blinded by your hatred for Father Cekada.

I wonder if he also suffers from TDS...Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[Pax Vobis]

I don't hate Fr Cekada at all.  I hate his divisive message.  Do you know how many people I know who've been told they can't receive communion at St Gertrude's because they aren't sedes?  Does this sound like his arguments are "just for sedes"?  Do you know how many people have told me I'm a heretic and then they tell me to read Fr Cekada's articles?  I'm not the only one; not by a long shot.

[Pax Vobis]

In point of fact, Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn frequently say on Restoration Radio that non-sedevacantists should attend Masses approved by their pope.  They are quite clear in this regard.  They are not ambiguous on the matter.

Exactly.  They are arguing that the ONLY traditionalist viewpoint is sedevacantism.  All other trad priests offer illicit (i.e. Sinful), inefficatious (empty) and "in communion with heretic" masses.  

So, they say, if trads want to be consistent they should attend masses "approved" by the pope (meaning the novus ordo or
Indult).  Any other option for a trad is inconsistent and sinful.

Their argument, not mine.  Don't get mad at me.  

[TKGS]

Exactly.  They are arguing that the ONLY traditionalist viewpoint is sedevacantism.  All other trad priests offer illicit (i.e. Sinful), inefficatious (empty) and "in communion with heretic" masses.  

So, they say, if trads want to be consistent they should attend masses "approved" by the pope (meaning the novus ordo or
Indult).  Any other option for a trad is inconsistent and sinful.

Their argument, not mine.  Don't get mad at me.  

And...?

Are you saying that consistency is not a good thing in regard to your faith?

If you really think there is a problem with Fr. Cekada's actual beliefs then you should quote him accurately and not make editorial changes in order to make a point that you think he really meant.

[Ladislaus]

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.

That's simply not true.  You believe that papal legitimacy is a binary ... which is completely contrary to CT.  Father Chazal believes that he is pope in one respect (materially) but not in another (formally) ... exactly CT.  You simply won't grasp the DISTINCTION here.  Something can be true in one respect but false in another ... so it's not a binary true or false, as you state.

[TKGS]

Something can be true in one respect but false in another ... so it's not a binary true or false, as you state.

So you say that in one respect Bergoglio is not the pope and in another respect, he is?

If that's actually true, then Bergoglio is right, God really is a god of surprises!  I never suspected something can be and not be at the very same time.

[Ladislaus]

Meg, with regard to your false allegation that +Lefebvre was hostile to sedevacantism, I present the following for your education:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/

Here's a tiny selection --

“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

“To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)

“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)

“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“That is why I beseech Your Eminence to …do everything in your power to get us a Pope, a true Pope, successor of Peter, in line with his predecessors, the firm and watchful guardian of the deposit of faith. The…eighty-year-old cardinals have a strict right to present themselves at the Conclave, and their enforced absence will necessarily raise the question of the validity of the election” (Letter to an unnamed cardinal, August 8, 1978.)

“It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)

“…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

[Ladislaus]

So you say that in one respect Bergoglio is not the pope and in another respect, he is?

If that's actually true, then Bergoglio is right, God really is a god of surprises!  I never suspected something can be and not be at the very same time.

Well, that's just due to your abject ignorance of scholastic philosophy.  Look into something called a distinction and then get back to me.

I actually fall a step short of saying that he is and isn't.  I believe that he is certainly the pope materially.  I have grave positive doubts about whether he is or ever was the pope formally.

[Ladislaus]

Based on the above quotes, where +Lefebvre admits that there's no certainty regarding the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants, I hold that +Lefebvre was a sededoubtist like myself.

[MyrnaM]

EVERYONE!  It's Christmas Eve ... lets all sing together.  Tra La :cheers:

All we want for Christmas is a very True Pope, a very True Pope a very True Pope, all we want for Christmas is a very True Pope and we will all be Happy This NEW YEAR!

[MyrnaM]

Post yours

[Pax Vobis]

Merry Christmas Eve, everyone!  I will take a day off and come back to you heretics later (KIDDING!)

I prayed for you all on this thread and everyone on this site today at mass.  Most of you all are very good Catholics and I'm honored to see that catholicity is still alive. 

 If there can be peace on Christmas Eve during WWI then we can have peace here.  Haha

[Neil Obstat]

Post yours

.
You have excellent taste, Myrna. I heard this in a store yesterday and can't get it out of my HEAD! 
.

.

[Jaynek]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=39&v=WbKWk6RzaiM