[TKGS]

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.

I actually understand what you're saying.  I just find the novelty of this position absurd.  Intellectuals often like to come up with bizarre philosophical theories to show just how much smarter they are than the great unwashed.

[Jaynek]

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

Oops. Let me try that again.

[2Vermont]

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.

No, that is not the CT.  Those who hold the CT agree that there is no pope.  They believe that the man in white has the potential to be pope, but is not pope at the moment.  Bishop Sanborn who holds the CT position is very clear about this.

It seems again that Fr Chazal believes something different than the CT if he believes that Francis is somehow at some level, pope.

[2Vermont]

I actually understand what you're saying.  I just find the novelty of this position absurd.  Intellectuals often like to come up with bizarre philosophical theories to show just how much smarter they are than the great unwashed.

I actually do not think he agrees with the Cassiciacuм Thesis. He said, I believe that he is certainly the pope materially.  

Those that follow the CT (as Cantarella does) do not believe these men are certainly pope in any way.  They believe that they are certainly not popes, but that they have a potential to be pope.

[2Vermont]

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

Most of us?  lol
Merry Christmas PV.

[MyrnaM]

Oops. Let me try that again.

That was beautiful!   Thank you

[MyrnaM]

Neil thanks again, please now listen to this one, it is so Catholic in every way!

[Stubborn]

So you too are claiming that sedevacantism is not Catholic.  Another dogmatic anti-sede.

No, I am not dogmatic "anti-sede" per se, I am a dogmatic "anti-dogmatic sede" because dogmatic sedeism as repeatedly preached   on CI, is indisputably anti-Catholic.

The problem with non-dogmatic sedeism is that it usually (not always) leads to dogmatic sedeism - at least, that is always the expectation. I personally have never known any dogmatic sede who was not first a non-dogmatic sede. I'm sure they're out there, but those I know of first tip-toe into the lie before letting themselves get sucked in whole hog.

[Stubborn]

When I argued against Sedevacantism in the past, I did it from an Ecclesia Dei position; never from R&R Lefebvrist position because I realized that is unsustainable and as a Roman Catholic, a sign of great disloyalty towards the Holy Father. Ladislaus said:

Well, I argue it from a Catholic position, I have no idea what arguing it from an Ecclesia Dei position is, nor from R&R Lefebvrist position is and far as that goes, the sede doubtist, sede privationist, sedeplentis, sede etc., should from now on all be simply labeled sedewhateverist as they are all only labels aimed at, and effectively help to be the cause of, division among the faithful, they serve absolutely no other purpose.

[2Vermont]

No, I am not dogmatic "anti-sede" per se, I am a dogmatic "anti-dogmatic sede" because dogmatic sedeism as repeatedly preached   on CI, is indisputably anti-Catholic.

The problem with non-dogmatic sedeism is that it usually (not always) leads to dogmatic sedeism - at least, that is always the expectation. I personally have never known any dogmatic sede who was not first a non-dogmatic sede. I'm sure they're out there, but those I know of first tip-toe into the lie before letting themselves get sucked in whole hog.

If you are merely anti-"dogmatic" sedevacantism, then you shouldn't have told me my tagline should be "Catholicism, not Sedevacantism". Clearly that is a condemnation of sedevacantism as a whole as non-Catholic. Just like others who keep repeating that they are not anti-sede, just anti-dogmatic sede, your posts betray you.

[Stubborn]

If you are merely anti-"dogmatic" sedevacantism, then you shouldn't have told me my tagline should be "Catholicism, not Sedevacantism". Clearly that is a condemnation of sedevacantism as a whole as non-Catholic. Just like others who keep repeating that they are not anti-sede, just anti-dogmatic sede, your posts betray you.

No, not so. Non-dogmatic sedes are merely confused Catholics. They are the ones who, in light of the crisis, cannot see how the pope could possibly be the pope, but they are far from seriously concerning themselves with it as they simply forge ahead striving to persevere in the faith for themselves and those in their care without regard to concerning themselves with something they cannot and have no business deciding. I am not against that position, heck, I held that position most of my life.
 
The main problem for some with non-dogmatic sedeism, is that it can easily be like the near occasion of sin and as such, it is as I said, non-dogmatic sedeism often leads to dogmatic sedeism, which position is indisputably anti-Catholic and as such, I am most certainly against dogmatic sedeism, as should all Catholics be against it.

 

[Stubborn]

According to stubbs, it is anti-Catholic to believe that heretics are not in the Church, that a Catholic should not be subject to heretics, and that the Pope is the center and unity of the Catholic faith and one must have the same faith as the Pope.
These Catholic Dogmas are anti-Catholic to stubbs.

Stubbs thinks that being Catholic means the Church can have a non-Catholic heretic as its leader. That the Pope can have the Catholic faith and a heretical faith at the same time, and that Catholic must be subject to heretics.

He is far from holding the Catholic Faith.

^^^^Here is a fine example of a dogmatic sede. To presuppose the pope is not the pope is and always was and always will be, decidedly and obviously anti-Catholic, but since doing so effectively nullifies all applicable to the current situation Catholic teachings, presupposing the pope is not the pope must remain the dogmatic sede foundation at all costs! Whoever says otherwise is a heretic!

[Meg]

Well, I argue it from a Catholic position, I have no idea what arguing it from an Ecclesia Dei position is, nor from R&R Lefebvrist position is and far as that goes, the sede doubtist, sede privationist, sedeplentis, sede etc., should from now on all be simply labeled sedewhateverist as they are all only labels aimed at, and effectively help to be the cause of, division among the faithful, they serve absolutely no other purpose.

Indeed, sedewhateverism doesn't serve any actual purpose except to cause division. It's not like sedewhateverism is going to end the crisis, or unite trads, since there's no way that all trads are ever going to be sedewhateverists. And even if all trads were to become sedewhateverists, how would that help the situation of the Crisis? It leads to bitterness when one becomes a dogmatic sede. 

Sedewhateverism is an odd state of mind, which strives to have others develop the same. 

[Jaynek]

Indeed, sedewhateverism doesn't serve any actual purpose except to cause division. It's not like sedewhateverism is going to end the crisis, or unite trads, since there's no way that all trads are ever going to be sedewhateverists. And even if all trads were to become sedewhateverists, how would that help the situation of the Crisis? It leads to bitterness when one becomes a dogmatic sede.

Sedewhateverism is an odd state of mind, which strives to have others develop the same.

Meg, you are one of the most divisive people on this forum.  Your constant quarreling leads to far more division than sedevacantism does. You are in no position to make such a complaint.

While I disagree with the SV understanding of the Crisis, I have no difficulty at all respecting the vast majority of them as well-intentioned people doing their best to make sense of a disturbing and confusing situation. Nothing in their views compels me to bitterly argue with them nor leads me to reject their status as my fellow Catholics.  I experience very little sense of separation from them.  On the contrary, I find myself liking and respecting many of the ones whom I encounter online.

Being quarrelsome and divisive comes from people's attitudes, not from their position on the Crisis.  It would be more useful to commit ourselves to prayer and to charitable conduct to each other than to putting our efforts into continual debates.

[Ladislaus]

Indeed, sedewhateverism doesn't serve any actual purpose except to cause division. It's not like sedewhateverism is going to end the crisis, or unite trads, since there's no way that all trads are ever going to be sedewhateverists. And even if all trads were to become sedewhateverists, how would that help the situation of the Crisis? It leads to bitterness when one becomes a dogmatic sede.

Sedewhateverism is an odd state of mind, which strives to have others develop the same.

Yet another absurd emotional rant.  SSPX has also "caused division".  When groups are divided, it's hardly ever unilaterally the fault of one party.  If they can't agree on something, especially core principles, then division is just a fact of life.  In fact, Meg, the division we see not only among Trads but of Trads in general from Catholics who remain in the Novus Ordo is a good indicator that the "shepherd has been struck" ... otherwise Catholics would know the voice of their shepherd, and no Trad hears the voice of Our Lord in Bergoglio and his predecessors.  When the sheep are scattered, it's a good sign that the shepherd has gone down.  Read the full version of Pope Leo XIII's original prayer to St. Michael.

In fact, +Williamson has long held that the principle of unity in the SSPX had been an artificial ... the commanding persona and moral authority of +Lefebvre, and he predicted that the SSPX would fracture once he died.  For Catholics, the ONLY true real source of unit is the Papacy, and so long as we are effectively broken away from an undisputedly legitimate pope, there's simply GOING to be division.  So are the Resistance also a "cause of divison"?