[Ladislaus]

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.

You're a shameless liar.  I personally know parties from both sides.  SEVERAL of the priests were NOT sedevacantist at the time of the expulsion.  I'm done responding to any or your posts because you're exposed now as a liar.

[Ladislaus]

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.  

But the power of designation is the material aspect of jurisdiction itself.  Consequently, they have material jurisdiction.  No mere "pope elect" can legitimately designate Cardinals ... so +Sanborn misfired on that one, in his haste to spin CT as just another flavor of sedevacantism.

[Meg]

You're a shameless liar.  I personally know parties from both sides.  SEVERAL of the priests were NOT sedevacantist at the time of the expulsion.  I'm done responding to any or your posts because you're exposed now as a liar.

Were you actually affiliated with the SSPX at the time?

[Stubborn]

The St. Vincent situation is only relevant when you post your irrelevant made-up doctrine "you can't say the pope is not the pope". You are the only one I bring this up to because you are the only one who states this man-made doctrine. It's not a teaching of the Church and is not even relevant.

I understand it is not a teaching of your church, it can't be or it would negate your man made religion. You sedes are the only ones to  claim it is irrelevant and ignore it - except of course when you want to call Catholics heretics for submitting to it. But in my religion, the Catholic religion, it is a defined dogma, complete with the penalty of anathema that befalls whoever says the pope is not the pope. This is why Catholics would never think of saying such a thing.

You will never come to understand this while remaining a dogmatic sede - that dogma of the Catholic Church and sedeism are entirely irreconcilable.

You forgot Lefebvre. He was excommunicated by the men you call pope remember.

You simply cannot post on this matter without referencing a Catholic archbishop, can you? I did not forget the good archbishop - but you need to.

[Ladislaus]

Were you actually affiliated with the SSPX at the time?

No, I was not.  But I personally knew most of the Nine as well as +Williamson (who was sent in by +Lefebvre to help clean up the mess) ... and they all told me that it wasn't about SVism and that several of the Nine were not sedevacantists at the time of the split.  In fact, the touchpoint was around the annulment issue ... in addition to the ministries of "Father" Stark.  Their primary concerns were around the validity of the Sacraments and integrity of the liturgy as they saw it.  In fact, +Lefebvre himself at the time was completely open to SVism.  It was after the split that the Nine all became SV, and +Lefebvre became embittered against SVism as a result ... because of their behavior in attempting to take properties from the SSPX.

[Stubborn]

You're a shameless liar.  I personally know parties from both sides.  SEVERAL of the priests were NOT sedevacantist at the time of the expulsion.  I'm done responding to any or your posts because you're exposed now as a liar.

No no sire, I was there in those days - that's no lie oh great bwanana, and I saw it with my own eyes and so did at least 20 other families that I know of who all left the society for a few years till things settled back down. That's the way it was and everyone around in those days was well aware of it - even though you may know all of them personally. As I said, ask any current SSPX priest who was around back then - or don't, because you'll only call them shameless liars as well, so it's probably better to just keep to yourself with that whole mess and go ahead and believe whatever it is that suits you.

[Stubborn]

* List the "Defined Dogma" that states one cannot say the Pope is not the Pope.

* If this were actually a Dogma, St. Vincent would have been anathema.

Being a dogmatic sede, you do not understand the teachings of the Catholic Church so please, stop accusing the good St. Vincent of what he would have been - you keep proving that have no Catholic understanding in the matter whatsoever.

As I already pointed out the obvious to you when I said - "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."

I have already posted the dogma from V1 numerous times. You keep calling me a heretic for posting it and you call the dogma heresy because it does not apply to today and etc. - such is the way it is with presupposing the pope is not the pope per the man made doctrines of  dogmatic sedeism. Although you are afraid to answer any questions for me, I will post the Catholic dogma once again just for you:

The Dogma:
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema.

For the purpose of making this post absolutely clear, to show yet again that it is a defined dogma of the Catholic (not the dogmatic sede) Church that whoever says the pope is not the pope is anathema, I am here, emphasizing only the pertinent part of the dogma:  "Therefore, if anyone says...that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema.

[MyrnaM]

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?

To Irish_Catholic, the problem is these days living in the Great Apostasy, foretold to us in Second Thess. Chapter 2 is ... WHERE IS THE CHURCH TODAY?

[Cantarella]

No mere "pope elect" can legitimately designate Cardinals ... so +Sanborn misfired on that one, in his haste to spin CT as just another flavor of sedevacantism.

This is a good point. I do not recall reading anything about "pope elect" in the original Thesis. Only the distinction between pope formaliter and pope materialiter. 

[Pax Vobis]

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.

Apples-oranges.  Firstly, the CHURCH has never taught that "guilty until proven innocent" in regards to formal heresy.  That would be chaos. 

Second, again, you are an extreme +Bellarminist who takes every word he wrote and elevates it to dogma.  Ridiculous. Further, +Bellarmine was writing to CHURCH OFFICIALS not laymen.
 
Third, there's a difference between the layman calling someone a heretic and "separating" from that person to protect their PERSONAL faith and a layman being able to OFFICIALLY charge someone with heresy.  THERES NOTHING IN CANON LAW WHICH ALLOWS A LAYMAN TO PROCLAIM ANYONE A HERETIC.  Laymen have no authority or jurisdiction to do ANYTHING in the govt sphere of the Church. 

[Irish_Catholic]

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?

I'm not conceding anything to anyone. I'm asking a question and querying what I thought was the answer. I've already admitted that I don't know enough on this subject because I'm not yet well enough read on all of the various topics. If you can't answer my question without being a smart-ass about it, do us all a favour and butt out.

[Irish_Catholic]

Apples-oranges.  Firstly, the CHURCH has never taught that "guilty until proven innocent" in regards to formal heresy.  That would be chaos.

Second, again, you are an extreme +Bellarminist who takes every word he wrote and elevates it to dogma.  Ridiculous. Further, +Bellarmine was writing to CHURCH OFFICIALS not laymen.
 
Third, there's a difference between the layman calling someone a heretic and "separating" from that person to protect their PERSONAL faith and a layman being able to OFFICIALLY charge someone with heresy.  THERES NOTHING IN CANON LAW WHICH ALLOWS A LAYMAN TO PROCLAIM ANYONE A HERETIC.  Laymen have no authority or jurisdiction to do ANYTHING in the govt sphere of the Church.

Thanks PV!
Finally, someone who writes something that is understandable by a guy who has no interest in the uncharitable spats between 'sedes' and 'non-sedes.' 

[Stubborn]

Once again, you show your ineptitude to grasp simple teachings of the Church.

This teaching is stating that the Roman Pontiff is the Supreme Authority over the ENTIRE Catholic Church and that he is the true and lawful successor to Saint Peter - IN THIS PRIMACY.

This teaching was meant to destroy the Eastern schismatic belief that the Roman Pontiff merely held a place of honor as the "first among equals".

C'mon, man.....  

Yes, this teaching, which is a dogma of the Catholic Church, states that it is by divine law ("thou art Peter and upon this rock...") that the popes are the successors of St. Peter and have the same ("this") primacy as St. Peter.

As a binding dogma, it says that whoever says it is *not* by divine law or  that the pope is *not* the successor of St. Peter (i.e. not the pope) having the same ("this") primacy as St. Peter, is anathema.

This lone dogmatic teaching simply yet effectively destroys sedeism in all it's varieties, it is for that reason you say that I show my ineptitude to grasp the simple teachings of the Church, when in reality, I am merely accepting the dogma without bias, remember, I'm not the one trying to weasel out of anything here. 

[Clemens Maria]

AES: We are required by God to identify dangers to our faith. We are required to have no communion with non-Catholics in matters of faith because we do not hold the same faith. There is no difference between being subject to Francis or Joel Osteen or a shaman etc... None of them have the Catholic Faith and none of them could be Pope.

Well Joel Osteen hasn’t put on a white cassock yet so it remains to be seen if he would be recognized as the Roman Pontiff by the R&R.  According to Stubborn it is a heresy to say that anyone wearing a white cassock is not the pope.

[Stubborn]

As a binding dogma, it says that whoever says it is *not* by divine law or  that the pope is *not* the successor of St. Peter (i.e. not the pope) having the same ("this") primacy as St. Peter, is anathema.

AES: I believe it is by divine law AND that Popes are the successors of St. Peter. So what? This absolutely does not say it is anathema to say the pope is not the pope.

This lone dogmatic teaching simply yet effectively destroys sedeism in all it's varieties, it is for that reason you say that I show my ineptitude to grasp the simple teachings of the Church, when in reality, I am merely accepting the dogma without bias, remember, I'm not the one trying to weasel out of anything here.

AES: This teaching destroys all Eastern Orthodox and those who hold similar views about the Papacy like Bellator said. This has nothing to do with Sedevacantism. That's why this is a straw-man and you have no business posting on this issue.

Do you even realize that you dogmatic sedes are the only ones to claim the dogma is entirely irrelevant *and* doesn't literally mean what it literally says?

There's another question that'll remain unanswered.

Now we can add that to the dogmatic sedes, dogma is merely a straw man.