[Pax Vobis]

Do you believe that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church?

Your over-simplified, "either-or" mindset prevents you from seeing reality as it might be (and probably is).  Since I am not the Church, I cannot say what the true reality is, with certainty.  However what I can say with certainty is that life is not black-and-white.  Many of you sedes have the same psychology, in this respect.  It's good for some things (avoiding the traps of modernism and questions of morality) but bad in other things (philosophical and theological distinctions).  Everyone has flaws but until you admit them, you can't grow.

[Pax Vobis]

Pax said:

Yes there is a separation of papal powers.  The Material Office is the pope and the Church's powers to create/control the human aspect of the Church.

Clemons said:

What’s your source for this assertion?

?? My source is the scripture quote which follows my above sentence.  "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth..."

[Clemens Maria]

Pax said:
Clemons said:

?? My source is the scripture quote which follows my above sentence.  "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth..."

So you invented it?

[Stubborn]

Uhm, "The Nine" were not expelled for SVism.  Several of them weren't actually even SVs when they were given the boot.  Prior to that time, +Lefebvre tolerated SVism among the SSPX priests.  After the behavior of The Nine, he became somewhat embittered against the SVs because of their deplorable behavior (trying to make off with SSPX property, etc.)  In fact, there was a famous saying of his among the priests, which sounded funny in French, that he did not say that the pope was the pope and did not say that the pope wasn't the pope.  I personally know several of "The Nine" ... as well as priests closely involved with having them kicked out (+Williamson for instance) ... so I know the complete story.  You on the other hand just shoot from the hip with anything that sounds like it might back your position.

No, they were expelled for sedeism, that's a fact whether you want to accept it or not. It was all the talk in those days among all SSPXers, at least all those I knew and it was the reason we and many, many, other families left the SSPX a year or so prior to their expulsion. As I already said, if you ever run into a current SSPX priest who was around in those days, ask him why the nine were expelled and rest assured his answer will be without hesitation, sedevacantism and that +Sanborn was the leader of the pack. I know that is quite a bit different than the current popular sede promoted opinion, all I can say about that is, I guess you had to be there, I was.
 

[Stubborn]

You sound silly. My quotes prove exactly what I said they prove.

No those quotes do not even remotely suggest anything of the sort. All they are is more sedetwisting of Catholics' teachings.

. Your "only quote sede saints" shtick is transparent. You'll notice how no one else says anything about it. Please accept my charitable insight, because I do wish for your salvation. You sound foolish when you say things like this. It makes no sense.

The question is, why don't the sedes EVER quote any of their own sede champions?

I certainly want to make sense, so if you actually do, in charity, wish for my salvation as you say, then simply answer the above question and give a good and thorough explanation as to why you never quote anything from any of your own sede hero's, not even from the father of sedeism in America, Francis Schuckardt.

[Stubborn]

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.

It is a blessing, except when he is wrong. In some ways he is like you were a few years ago in that he needs to unlearn certain wrong things as you seem to have.

[Irish_Catholic]

Please forgive me if I make a fool of myself with this post, as there are lots of issues in this thread that I don't fully understand - I am not well read enough to comment on them.

I do have a query about heresy. Who gets to call someone else a heretic? I thought that the Church itself was the only competent authority for convicting someone of heresy. And there is past evidence of them getting it wrong. Joan of Arc was burnt as a heretic, and very shortly thereafter a second trial found her innocent of all charges, and she was subsequently canonised. Surely an example of one man's heretic being another man's saint?

[2Vermont]

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:

So, is the bolded above the same thing that Ladislaus has been saying....that they are true popes materially? 

It seems to me that you don't consider them popes at all and would never call them "true" popes in any sense.

[Stubborn]

No those quotes do not even remotely suggest anything of the sort. All they are is more sedetwisting of Catholics' teachings.

AES: Yes they do. You just don't want to admit it, because it destroys any ridiculous arguments you have.

Not so. Your quotes do not in any way prove what you say they prove, were that not the case, I would have happily admitted as much 40 years ago - but they don't. 




The question is, why don't the sedes EVER quote any of their own sede champions?

AES: There is no such thing as a sede champion. Just like there are no R&R champions. It doesn't make sense for you to keep saying this.

I say this because you have a different religion than I have. I have Catholic champions, i.e. my popes, saints, doctors and fathers etc., and hero's like +ABL and Fr. Wathen whom I quote often, albeit to no avail precisely because you have a different religion, which to you is like a foreign language, you simply will never understand it. You have a religion without a pope or hierarchy or Church or any hope of ever having the same, same as your sede champions. Which is why aside from being illogical, it is entirely senseless for any sede to quote Catholic sources to promote sedeism, especially while they have their own sede authorities they should be quoting.

And it is obvious that the question asked will be added to the multitude of questions that shall remain unanswered by any sede.




I certainly want to make sense, so if you actually do, in charity, wish for my salvation as you say, then simply answer the above question and give a good and thorough explanation as to why you never quote anything from any of your own sede hero's, not even from the father of sedeism in America, Francis Schuckardt.

AES: This has all been explained before. But like all the arguments you get destroyed on, you wait a certain amount of time until people have moved on to destroying more of your arguments and you bring your old ones back hoping people will have forgotten. Sedevacantism is a situation, just like after every pope dies. I know you like to deny this happens but it does. It is provable through history and Church Dogma proves it is happening now because heretics cannot be elected Pope. Notice how this differs from your heresies which state that a heretic is Pope, that the Pope is the leader of the true Church AND a false "church" simultaneously, that we must be subject to a heretic etc... So in charity, again, reject these heresies. 

No, I don't wait a certain amount of time - I have real life responsibilities - that's the reason for the interruptions. And no, no one has destroyed anything of mine - you and the other sedewhateverists keep trying to destroy the Catholic faith and replace it with your dogmatic sedeism, you're a bit frustrated because you've been unsuccessful is all.

[Stubborn]

It's the same principle that allows us to call a Protestant a heretic. We observe that they are not Catholic and label them as such.

And it is upon that authority they decide the pope is not the pope.

[2Vermont]

So you invented it?

That's what it sounds like to me.

[Cantarella]

John Lane would argue that the Conciliar clowns could conceivably exercise supplied jurisdiction due to common error concerning the legitimacy of the claim but actually possessing and exercising even a limited material jurisdiction would be absolutely unheard of for a non-member of the Church.  It is a novel idea that to my knowledge was never proposed by any Catholic theologian prior to the 1970s.

There is no "limited material jurisdiction". In the CT, they possess zero jurisdiction. That is, they have completely lost the right to guide and rule the Church. The "material" part is no related to jurisdiction, but it refers only to the physical occupancy of the office and the power of designation.  

[Stubborn]

We decide that a heretic is not Pope on the Authority of the Church Teaching that heretics are not in the Church. It's the same Teaching that you reject and teach the opposite of. Good job on the tired old straw man you have been spouting for a while now. St. Vincent Ferrer decided the Pope was not the Pope so your straw man doesn't even hold up when it's put in its proper context. :applause:

But St. Vincent is a Catholic saint which you have no right to even reference, particularly since the two crisis' were completely different - but you gotta twist what you gotta twist. Don't forget that if in fact St. Vincent were a sede, we'd still be in an interregnum - that much we can be absolutely certain of, which is one reason you, as a dogmatic sede, have no right to reference him as if he was a sede. 

The question remains, what would +Thuc have decided? Richard Ibranyi decided? The Palmarian popes decided? What would you have decided? If it were up to you or them, is there any doubt that we'd still be in an interregnum? Or do you deny this? Ah, I know, more questions that will remain unanswered due to them being self condemning if you ever dared to answer.

So as we can plainly see yet again, we do not adhere to the same teachings. I adhere to the Catholic teachings, you adhere to Catholic teachings after they've been sedetwisted into saying what they do not mean. Same o same o.

[Clemens Maria]

Please forgive me if I make a fool of myself with this post, as there are lots of issues in this thread that I don't fully understand - I am not well read enough to comment on them.

I do have a query about heresy. Who gets to call someone else a heretic? I thought that the Church itself was the only competent authority for convicting someone of heresy. And there is past evidence of them getting it wrong. Joan of Arc was burnt as a heretic, and very shortly thereafter a second trial found her innocent of all charges, and she was subsequently canonised. Surely an example of one man's heretic being another man's saint?

Do the Anglicans get to decide who is a heretic and who is not?  If not, why would you concede this power to the Conciliarists?

[Clemens Maria]

There is no "limited material jurisdiction". In the CT, they possess zero jurisdiction. That is, they have completely lost the right to guide and rule the Church. The "material" part is no related to jurisdiction, but it refers only to the physical occupancy of the office and the power of designation.  

One cannot possess any power within the Church apart from jurisdiction.  Physical coercion is certainly possible but it would not imply any legitimacy.  And I’m not sure what CT would be preserving at this point.  I thought the intention behind it was to preserve traditional ecclesiology.  But it seems to me that the result of it just gives the Conciliar Church a quasi-Catholic status.