[Jaynek]

It is disturbing to us all, but it need not be as confusing to them as they make it Jayne. They go out of their way, as they must, in order to help make it confusing - not only for them but for everyone - and all for absolutely, positively no reason whatsoever. Sedeism truly is iniquitous.

There certainly is no reason to be so concerned about it that they must go out of their way to reject *all* authoritative Church teachings in the matter and twist all the teachings so that they fit their own misguided presupposition that the pope is not the pope, then accuse those who actually have faith in the Perennial teachings of the Church of being heretics.

I think there is greater variation among those identifying themselves as sedevacantists than your comment suggests.  Many, in my experience, refrain from describing those with different views of the Crisis as heretics.  

I do think that there are people who over-use accusations of heresy, but I do not see the problem as especially connected to sedevacantism.  I would like to see a great many people using more restraint and precision with regards to the terms "heresy" and "heretic".

[Jaynek]

And yet she doesn't mind when you call me a heretic for believing that Francis has jurisdiction.

As I recall, I understood him as pointing out an inconsistency in your views rather than seriously accusing you of being a heretic.  If he actually did call you a heretic, then I do mind.

[Stubborn]

As I said, as long as you consider your "pope" to be a heretic, you are subject to a heretic by your own admission.

It is a decisive mark of anti-Catholicism to presuppose the pope is not the pope. Always has been, always will be. The 'obvious to Catholics' reason for this, is that to presuppose the pope is not the pope is to effectively reject all the magisterial teachings that have anything to do with the pope, his office and authority. IOW, for you, those teachings being being non-applicable and meaningless, the Church may as well have never bothered to teach anything about the pope at all. 

Do you see how that works now?

[Jaynek]

An Even Seven writes:

To treat of the pope the way you do makes the office meaningless. You have deprived him of all authority, and obey him when you feel like it.

I can see the justice of this accusation when I observe Meg's posts concerning the flat earth topic.  She disregards Pope Leo XIII's teaching on how to understand Scripture and the Fathers, preferring her own interpretations.  It does leave me wondering if there is some connection with her view of the Crisis.

[Ladislaus]

What other reason could there be for you to support Fr. Chazal, other than believing that he is your brand of sede?

Uhm, because I agree with basically every single sentence of his two hour talk about his position.  You're the one who's constantly yammering on about "teams" and camps and "brands".  I am not in any camp.  If any side makes a valid argument, I acknowledge it ... and I draw conclusions therefrom.

[Ladislaus]

With Sedevacantism one ultimately ends up without an indefectible Church. That is, the Holy Roman Church, mother and mistress and the only one particular indefectible Church.

That's one valid criticism of straight sedevacantism ... whereas the Father Chazal position and sedeprivationism solve that difficulty.  On the other hand, with R&R, you ALSO end up "without an indefetible Church" ... because R&R posits that the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline have defected.

[Stubborn]

It is a decisive mark of anti-Catholicism to presuppose the pope is not the pope.

AES: We know you think that. This also means you believe St. Vincent was anti-Catholic because he presupposed the Pope wasn't the Pope.

I already explained to you about St. Vincent, who was Catholic, as a Catholic he never presupposed the pope was not the pope. St. Vincent, being Catholic, condemned such as being certainly a schismatic practice - just the same as the Church has always taught.


Always has been, always will be. The 'obvious to Catholics' reason for this, is that to presuppose the pope is not the pope is to effectively reject all the magisterial teachings that have anything to do with the pope, his office and authority.

AES: This is exactly what you do. If it wasn't, then you would accept Vatican II taught. You believe in the unCatholic theory that one only has to obey a Pope when he is infallible. This is condemned by Pope Pius IX.

No, I am not guilty of presupposing the pope is not the pope - I know he is the pope, you are the one who presupposes the popes are not popes - it is the foundation of your man made religion. I am sure we went over this earlier.



IOW, for you, those teachings being being non-applicable and meaningless, the Church may as well have never bothered to teach anything about the pope at all.  

AES: You have no idea what you're saying, there are no teaching that support your heresies. Your ideas have been condemned. To treat of the pope the way you do makes the office meaningless. You have deprived him of all authority, and obey him when you feel like it.

Wrong again sede. If you ever come to discern the difference between blind obedience and true obedience, you might come to understand why you are wrong.  


Do you see how that works now?

AES: I have seen how your heresy works for a while now.

Ok, so you still don't see how that works. Well, it's like this - because, for whatever reason, you presuppose the pope is not the pope, you have effectively nullified all of the magisterial teachings regarding the pope and his office, just as you have nullified the very status of the pope himself - which is to say that you reject her teachings because you will not listen to the teachings of the Church in this matter of your pope problem.

[Stubborn]

That's one valid criticism of straight sedevacantism ... whereas the Father Chazal position and sedeprivationism solve that difficulty.  On the other hand, with R&R, you ALSO end up "without an indefetible Church" ... because R&R posits that the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline have defected.

[Ladislaus]

+Lefebvre:

“…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)

[2Vermont]

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.

Ladislaus...

You never replied to this. 

If you read Bishop Sanborn's explanation of the CT below he states that both totalists and material-formalists believe that these men are false popes. The latter group believes that they would be "pope-elects", but still not popes.

Is this what you and Father Chazal believe?  I'm trying to figure out if you both believe something different than the CT or if I am just misunderstanding you. You have also called yourself a sede doubtist ...that you doubt that they are true popes.  But it is my understanding that the CT asserts that they are certainly NOT popes.  There is no doubt involved in the CT, so I don't understand how the CT could also be your position at the same time.


http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf

[2Vermont]

Is Father Chazal not part of said "Resistance"?  I'm actually promoting his position on the crisis as the most Catholic that I see out there.

This is related to my other post...this confuses me.  How is Father Chazal a Resistance priest if he agrees with the Cassiciacuм Thesis?  Does he recognize these men as true popes or doesn't he?  I thought priests of the Resistance recognize them as true popes ... completely.

[Cantarella]

So you have concluded that the Holy Roman Church has defected?

No, I do no think the Roman Church has defected; but that in the surface, it is currently politically and economically infiltrated by the enemies of Christ (Jews), just as the rest of the world. What happens to the infallibility of the Roman Church, in the absence of a Pope, let's say during legitimate interregnums? The primary indefectibility of the Catholic Church resides in doctrine. The most important way in which the Catholic Church cannot defect is in teaching true doctrine. Since God is changeless, the doctrine of the Church is therefore forever changeless. A single contradiction or inconsistency in her ordinary or extraordinary magisterium would be sufficient to prove that the assistance of God was not with her.

What do you think that has happened then in recent decades? Don't you see a contradiction for example, in the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years declaring Jews to be the perfidious enemies of Christ for 2000 years and now all of a sudden, starting with Nostrat Aetate, we see that according to Vatican docuмents, Jews (from perfidious, now pass to be called "our eldest brothers") no longer need to be even coverted to the Catholic religion in order to attain salvation? Was the Church wrong for 2000 years in its traditional αnтι-ѕємιтє position?

The evidence of a contradiction there is overhelming.

[Stubborn]

+Lefebvre:

“…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)

He answered it himself when he expelled "The Nine" some 10 or 12 years later.

[2Vermont]

He answered it himself when he expelled "The Nine" some 10 or 12 years later.

No, he didn't give his answer re: sedevacantism then because he did not expel them from his Society for sedevacantism.  Here is the Letter of the Nine to ABL that precipitated the expulsion:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=48

Note that of the issues presented, sedevacantism wasn't even mentioned.  In addition, not all of the Nine even held the position at the time (although eventually ended up doing so).

[2Vermont]

No, I do no think the Roman Church has defected; but that in the surface, it is currently politically and economically infiltrated by the enemies of Christ (Jews), just as the rest of the world. What happens to the infallibility of the Roman Church, in the absence of a Pope, let's say during legitimate interregnums? The primary indefectibility of the Catholic Church resides in doctrine. The most important way in which the Catholic Church cannot defect is in teaching true doctrine. Since God is changeless, the doctrine of the Church is therefore forever changeless. A single contradiction or inconsistency in her ordinary or extraordinary magisterium would be sufficient to prove that the assistance of God was not with her.

What do you think that has happened then in recent decades? Don't you see a contradiction for example, in the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years declaring Jews to be the perfidious enemies of Christ for 2000 years and now all of a sudden, starting with Nostrat Aetate, we see that according to Vatican docuмents, Jews (from perfidious, now pass to be called "our eldest brothers") no longer need to be even coverted to the Catholic religion in order to attain salvation? Was the Church wrong for 2000 years in its traditional αnтι-ѕємιтє position?

The evidence of a contradiction there is overhelming.

I have asked Herm on mulitple occasions what his position is on the Crisis in this thread and he never answers.  Good luck.