[Jaynek]

I could certainly do without his condescending attitude.

I don't see him that way, although I can see how some might find his tone a bit harsh or impatient at times.
Once we get to discussing people's tones and attitudes it is fairly subjective. 

[2Vermont]

I don't see him that way, although I can see how some might find his tone a bit harsh or impatient at times.
Once we get to discussing people's tones and attitudes it is fairly subjective.

Not always.

[2Vermont]

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.

OK, so you haven't decided on a position then.  That would explain why I couldn't figure it out.

[MyrnaM]

I love Ladislaus, I think of him as my hairshirt, very coarse, and I am gaining mucho merits. 

 

[Clemens Maria]

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 think your explanation is very weak here.  Philosophically a thing either is or it isn’t.  It can’t both be and not be at the same time.  To say otherwise is to dabble in the new theology which we all know is nonsense.  So either Frank is the pope or he isn’t.  What say you?

[TKGS]

I think your explanation is very weak here.  Philosophically a thing either is or it isn’t.  It can’t both be and not be at the same time.  To say otherwise is to dabble in the new theology which we all know is nonsense.  So either Frank is the pope or he isn’t.  What say you?

I've asked this several times, and it seems that the answer, Clemens Maria, is that you're not making distinctions.

[Clemens Maria]

I've asked this several times, and it seems that the answer, Clemens Maria, is that you're not making distinctions.

This is the (fatal?) weakness of the CT.  For a thing to exist it must have both a formal and a material cause.  If it is missing either it doesn’t exist at all.

[Clemens Maria]

Also it is debatable that these Conciliar clowns have material possession of the See.  Controlling the physical resources which belong to the See doesn’t constitute material possession.  That they are pope-elect is also debatable since they don’t meet the requirements for legitimate candidacy.  The only thing which CT could claim as a basis for material possession is the lack of an authoritative declaration on the illegitimacy of the claim.  That’s a weak position considering the circuмstances.

[Cantarella]

I think your explanation is very weak here.  Philosophically a thing either is or it isn’t.  It can’t both be and not be at the same time.  To say otherwise is to dabble in the new theology which we all know is nonsense.  So either Frank is the pope or he isn’t.  What say you?

The CT says he's NOT the pope. He does keep the power to designate, though; which is different from the power to rule (Jurisdiction). The thesis is based mainly upon the philosophical principles concerning Authority, this is, the Jurisdiction. The power to designate, is necessary for the continuation of the Church, the succession of delegates from the Apostles to this day. However, the absence of Authority does not in itself imply that the function of the transmission of responsibility cannot be exercised. "This second function does not formally flow from the first". The Thesis is quite clear about the distinction between the power to rule (which Bergolio has not); and the power to designate (which he still has).

From Fr. Lucien:

This permanence of the hierarchical structure constitutes the foundation while patiently awaiting the divine renovation of Authority; and it assures the material continuity of the hierarchical succession, a continuity absolutely required for the Church to retain her Apostolic Nature.

[TKGS]

The Thesis is quite clear about the distinction between the power to rule (which Bergolio has not); and the power to designate (which he still has).

Could you provide concrete examples of what the Conciliar popes (and especially Bergoglio) has designated?  Perhaps, then, I would understand the distinction people keep saying I am unable to grasp.

[Clemens Maria]

Only a pope possesses ordinary and universal jurisdiction.  If the man is not the pope then he does not possess ordinary and universal jurisdiction and neither does he have any authority to designate unless he had previously received that power from the pope.  The Apostolic succession is a separate but related issue.  An interregnum does not interrupt it.

[Pax Vobis]

When the distinction between material and formal heretic was scrapped in order to resist by all means necessary "sede vacantism", this opened the door for even the "hardened" Catholics to accept any non-Catholic as leader of the Church. It serves the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda entirely in its endeavors for a one world religion. 

Exactly.  +ABL was not against 'sedevacantism' per se.  He recognized it was a legitimate argument but he did not see the necessity (in his time) to commit either for or against.  He was too busy setting up chapels and running a seminary.  +Fellay has put all his propaganda eggs into the 'anti-sede' basket, fueling the fire of fear of schism, in hopes that his flock will run to the extreme of accepting a deal with rome.  May God have mercy on +Fellay's soul.  I have no trust of him.

[Pax Vobis]

The CT says he's NOT the pope. He does keep the power to designate, though; which is different from the power to rule (Jurisdiction)...The Thesis is quite clear about the distinction between the power to rule (which Bergolio has not); and the power to designate (which he still has).

This is a case, as Lad has pointed out, of the answer being 'yes and no'.  Why can't that be the answer?  Many of you are forgetting that the pope's powers are both SPIRITUAL and EARTHLY.  If he's the "pope elect" then he's the pope.  This means he has all the earthly powers of governing and jurisdiction.  

Does this mean he has full papal powers, 90% of which are spiritual?  No.  So he does not have the spiritual power to teach or spiritual jurisdiction.  This is the most important part of being a pope.

There are also spiritual and earthly parts of jurisdiction, which many of you forget.  Another distinction to remember.

----
Here's a great analogy for all of you who want to argue from general principles to a specific circuмstance so that the answer is "clear".

1.  The church teaches that those who die in mortal sin go to hell.
2.  Those who commit ѕυιcιdє die in mortal sin.
3.  Therefore those who commit ѕυιcιdє go to hell.
4.  Therfore Suzie Smith, who committed ѕυιcιdє is in hell.

Of course, we cannot say that #4 is correct.  The Church has (and never would) say that.  

So, you want to use the same logic concerning the pope, (90% of AES's posts use this logic) but it doesn't work.

1.  The church teaches that heretics are 'ipso facto' excommunicated.
2.  The church teaches that heretics are not members of the church and that a non-member can't hold office.
3.  Therefore if a pope is a heretic, he can't hold office and is not a member of the church.
4.  Therefore the post-conciliar popes are not popes.

The logic sounds 'air tight' but it's just not.  I wish it were, but it's not that simple.  It's probably that simple for anyone who's not the pope, but the pope is a different flavor of heretic because he has a God-appointed position (which every other position in the church does not), therefore he's treated differently.

[Clemens Maria]

Assuming that Frank’s election was conducted by the college of Cardinals (which I don’t concede) they do not have the power or authority to elect a designator.  They can only elect a pope.  So either the man elected is the pope and possesses all the authority and powers of the pope or he is somehow not a legitimate pope in which case he has no authority or powers whatsoever.  There is no middle ground where the candidate can receive some but not all of the authority and power of the office.  If there was such a possibility it would not have escaped the notice of Church theologians until the crisis was well underway.  Vatican I is the key to understanding this crisis.  A pope who promulgates novel and harmful doctrine and liturgy in his official capacity as pope is incompatible with V1 doctrine.  

[Pax Vobis]

So either the man elected is the pope and possesses all the authority and powers of the pope or he is somehow not a legitimate pope in which case he has no authority or powers whatsoever.  There is no middle ground where the candidate can receive some but not all of the authority and power of the office. 

No, there IS a middle stance.  The cardinals DID elect a pope, he DID have the full powers (in potential).  But, being a heretic, as soon as he was elected, he lost the spiritual powers due to his heresy.

As Pius X and XII's change to canon law states, the excommunication penalties are suspended JUST for the election.  Afterwards and for all other situations, such penalties are in effect.