[Ladislaus]

When they were expelled, they all immediately started either their own or joint sede chapels.

No, several of them took quite some time before they became sede.  They started their own independent chapels, and you falsely alleged earlier that they were expelled for sedevacantism.  Any kind of gymnastics to avoid admitting that you were wrong, eh?

[Cantarella]

Sorry I honestly missed you asking that. The thread has blown out to many pages.

I don't have a definite answer for you presently. There appears to be a major black spot with Trads regarding the Indefectibly of the Church, particularly the Roman Church - the only indefectible Church.

It is my understanding that the infallibility of the Local Church of Rome is inseparably attached to the position of the Bishop of Rome. This is, Rome is the indestructible "Eternal City" because the pope, the Vicar of Christ, resides there, and it has been the case since St. Peter walked the earth. The notion is also linked to the pope not ever moving or transferring to any other episcopal see. The pope will never be the Bishop of Vienna; but solely the Bishop of Rome. The Roman Pontiff.

I think this is what it means and nothing more, so what happens during a legitimate interregnum to the Local Church of Rome?

[Meg]

No, I call you a heretic for denying the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline.  But you can't seem to keep any of this straight.  It should have been obvious by now that I also believe Francis is in material possession of jurisdiction.

Except that I've not addressed the issue of indefectibility. So there's nothing for me to "keep straight." I don't have to keep all of your false arguments straight. 

Just because you spent time in seminary doesn't give you the right to lord it over everyone else. You didn't actually stay in seminary. So don't try to make yourself an authority over others. 

So what if you believe that Francis has material jurisdiction. That's just your form of sedeism. 

[Jaynek]

Except that I've not addressed the issue of indefectibility. So there's nothing for me to "keep straight." I don't have to keep all of your false arguments straight.

Just because you spent time in seminary doesn't give you the right to lord it over everyone else. You didn't actually stay in seminary. So don't try to make yourself an authority over others.

So what if you believe that Francis has material jurisdiction. That's just your form of sedeism.

I don't think that Ladislaus "lords it over" other posters.  He tends to be more knowledgeable than those who have not had his opportunities for study and shares his knowledge.  Judging by his reputation score many people as well as myself appreciate this.

He has a good understanding of Catholic teaching and is good at explaining it.  This is a blessing for us.

[Ladislaus]

Except that I've not addressed the issue of indefectibility.

Sure you have ... except that you don't even realize it.

[Ladislaus]

Just because you spent time in seminary doesn't give you the right to lord it over everyone else.

Having strong convictions regarding various theological issues doesn't rise to the level of "lording it over" anyone else.  If that were true, you'd be at the top of that pyramind here.  What irritates many is that I happen to have the theological background and ability to actually back up my position.  Thus far I've seen little from you beyond emotional rants, ad hominem attacks, and gratuitious restatements of your position ... on this and other issues.

[2Vermont]

Both believe that they are false popes formally, whereas straight SVs also believe that they're false/illegitimate materially.  You see and read everything as a binary because you're mind is not capable of dealing with distinctions.

Saying my "mind is not capable of dealing with distinctions" certainly sounds like a personal attack there Lad even though you will insist that it's not.  I am trying to clarify your position and you come back with (basically) I'm too stupid for you.  Nice. 

Now, if you could try to take my posts/questions seriously, I would appreciate it.  What I don't see is that your position is the same as the CT's position.  I think I understand the basics of the CT position and that is why I don't think your position is the same as the CT position.  Nor do I see how your sede-doubtist ("he may not be pope") position fits into it. 

So....I will repeat it again in case you're just misunderstanding me.  Bishop Sanborn's position is the same as the CT.  He states that the popes are false.  He doesn't make a distinction whereby they are true in any way.  He doesn't state that the popes are true popes "materially".  He equates being a pope "materially" with the term "Pope-elect". A pope-elect is not a pope.  A pope-elect has the potential to become pope. Just as the "president-elect" is not the president yet neither is a pope-elect pope yet.  

Do you disagree with Bishop Sanborn here?  If so, how? 

[Ladislaus]

Saying my "mind is not capable of dealing with distinctions" certainly sounds like a personal attack there Lad even though you will insist that it's not.  I am trying to clarify your position and you come back with (basically) I'm too stupid for you.  Nice.

Because you have now asked at least half a dozen times a yes-OR-no question about whether they are popes when the answer is yes-AND-no.  You keep driving for a yes-or-no answer when THERE ISN'T ONE, and there's no explanation for this other than the fact that you don't understand what a distinction is.

[Ladislaus]

Bishop Sanborn's position is the same as the CT.  He states that the popes are false.  He doesn't make a distinction whereby they are true in any way.  He doesn't state that the popes are true popes "materially".  He equates being a pope "materially" with the term "Pope-elect". A pope-elect is not a pope.  A pope-elect has the potential to become pope. Just as the "president-elect" is not the president yet neither is a pope-elect pope yet.  

Do you disagree with Bishop Sanborn here?  If so, how?

Notice that he does NOT say that they are NOT popes, rather that they are false popes.  They are popes who have no authority and are therefore false popes; they act as though they have authority when they actually do not ... thus false popes.

[2Vermont]

Because you have now asked at least half a dozen times a yes-OR-no question about whether they are popes when the answer is yes-AND-no.  You keep driving for a yes-or-no answer when THERE ISN'T ONE, and there's no explanation for this other than the fact that you don't understand what a distinction is.

I absolutely know what a distinction is...I just think you are wrong in how you are using it here.

According to others who believe in the CT, they do NOT believe the pope is a true pope.  They do not believe the pope is a true pope "materially".  They believe that the election is legit, but a legit election doesn't automatically make him a true pope.

If you can show me where the CT teaches that the legit election makes him a true pope "materially" and not just a "pope-elect", then I'll know you're not just trying to avoid answering my questions.

Up thread I believe you admitted that Fr Chazal's position is not completely CT...90% CT.....I'm guessing the 10% difference is that he thinks a "material" pope is actually a true pope....which would be much more in line with the beliefs of the R&R..but it wouldn't be in line with the CT.

Then again, it may just be that we are saying the same thing and I am misunderstanding you. 

[2Vermont]

Notice that he does NOT say that they are NOT popes, rather that they are false popes.  They are popes who have no authority and are therefore false popes; they act as though they have authority when they actually do not ... thus false popes.

From his explanation of the CT:

Q. According to the thesis, is Ratzinger the pope or not? A. He is not the pope. 

Q. If he is not the pope, then what is he? A. He is a pope-elect.

[Ladislaus]

According to others who believe in the CT, they do NOT believe the pope is a true pope.  They do not believe the pope is a true pope "materially".

That's precisely what they're saying.  You're still bungling your application of the word "true" by applying it equivocally across the terms.

#1) No, they are NOT true popes simpliciter ... the source of +Sanborn's statement.
#2) No, they are NOT true popes formaliter.
#3) Yes, they ARE true popes materialiter.

This distinction is the ESSENCE of CT.  I've heard it explained many times directly from Bishop Sanborn himself.  When +Sanborn was saying that they are not true popes, he was referring to the statement taken simpliciter.  You however are trying to say that because of #1 and #2 above that #3 isn't true ... which is false.

[Ladislaus]

From his explanation of the CT:

Q. According to the thesis, is Ratzinger the pope or not? A. He is not the pope.

Q. If he is not the pope, then what is he? A. He is a pope-elect.

Again, read my lips, he's speaking SIMPLICITER (see above) ... dumbing it down for people who insist on a "yes" or "no" answer.  He knows what the core distinction is.

+Sanborn actually bungles his own spin on CT, however, by claiming that Ratzinger is a pope elect.  According to that spin on CT (his own), he's not even a pope elect.  I'll come back to that shortly.

[Ladislaus]

Little secret about +Sanborn is that he only signed on with CT because +McKenna insisted that he would not consecrate a straight sedevacantist but only someone who held CT.  So ever since then +Sanborn has adopted CT, somewhat grudgingly, with a sedevacantist spin to it, minimizing the implications of the material papacy.  But by minimizing these implications, +Sanborn also causes the theological benefits of CT over sedevacantism to evaporate.

In this particular answer, likening material pope to a mere pope-elect, he involves himself in contradiction.  If these popes are merely pope-elect in the true sense, then Ratzinger (was) NOT a pope-elect himself.  Why?  Because a pope-elect cannot appoint Cardinals.  So the Cardinals who elected Ratzinger (mostly appointed by Wojtyla and some by Montini, also themselves mere pope-elects) could not have legitimately elected Ratzinger to make HIM a pope elect.  That's where +Sanborn trips himself up in this particular answer.  No, the implications of CT is that these men become MATERIAL popes and then can do things like make appointments and designations from a legal standpoint ... e.g. appoint Cardinals who can then in turn elect other popes.  This is also the part of CT which evades the problem of ecclesiavacantism because a legally-designated material pope can make appointments to episcopal sees, and the bishops appointed, if they themselves do not labor under any impediments to prevent them, can formally exercise office.  But perhaps he was using the term "Pope Elect" as a shorthand way to dumb down the notion of "material pope".

[2Vermont]

I don't think that Ladislaus "lords it over" other posters.  He tends to be more knowledgeable than those who have not had his opportunities for study and shares his knowledge.  Judging by his reputation score many people as well as myself appreciate this.

He has a good understanding of Catholic teaching and is good at explaining it.  This is a blessing for us.

I could certainly do without his condescending attitude.