[Ladislaus]

I probably should know who this is, but I don't.  Who is it?

That looks to me like Dr. Robert Fastiggi, a Novus Ordo "theologian" who has publicly debated against Bishop Sanborn;  He teaches at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit.

[Ladislaus]

You are putting the cart before the horse. The Roman Church is the one particular Church that all other Churches must submit to.
I'm a Roman Catholic.

No, the other Churches don't submit to the Roman Church; they submit to the Roman Pontiff, the Pope.

[Ladislaus]

SVs deny this:

I've explained twice arleady, and now a third time, that this is a moot point since the Crisis has affected the entire Church, not just the Roman one.  So if the rest of the Church has defected, then so has the Roman Church ... since nothing makes them more pure vis-a-vis this Crisis.

And, for the, oh, fiftieth time, the absence of a legitimate Pope or Bishop of Rome does not cause the Church to defect.  What WOULD, on the other hand, cause the Roman Church to defect would be if a legitimate Roman Pontiff were to have taught heresy to the entire Church.  So, answer THAT, R&R.

[Ladislaus]

I suggest you know nothing of indefectability.

And I suggest that you don't know much about anything.  You have yet to articulate an actual argument but just bloviate out of ignorance about things you aren't even remotely acquainted with.

Try putting your Roman Church platitude into a syllogism, and make an argument, ... but be careful not to hurt yourself ... and then maybe I'll write back.

[Ladislaus]

Our Lady of LaSalette:  "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."

[Jaynek]

And I suggest that you don't know much about anything.  You have yet to articulate an actual argument but just bloviate out of ignorance about things you aren't even remotely acquainted with.

On the plus side, thanks to Hermenegild, this thread's chances of going over a hundred posts are practically assured.  I'm sure we were all looking forward to that. 
;D

[2Vermont]

I've explained twice arleady, and now a third time, that this is a moot point since the Crisis has affected the entire Church, not just the Roman one.  So if the rest of the Church has defected, then so has the Roman Church ... since nothing makes them more pure vis-a-vis this Crisis.

And, for the, oh, fiftieth time, the absence of a legitimate Pope or Bishop of Rome does not cause the Church to defect.  What WOULD, on the other hand, cause the Roman Church to defect would be if a legitimate Roman Pontiff were to have taught heresy to the entire Church.  So, answer THAT, R&R.

Bam.

[Cantarella]

You conveniently ignored the essence of the quote.

The local Church of Rome cannot defect because the legitimate successor of St. Peter is there.  "For what other See was it ever said, I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith do not fail?". But what happens when there is an impostor falsely occupying the Seat of Peter? This is not an impossibility because there are historical accounts of this situation before.

St. Augustine says: "Christ praying for Peter, prayed for the rest, because in the Pastor and Prelate the people is corrected and commended". The legitimate successors of St. Peter have a special privilege by Christ's prayer and promise, never to fail in faith. Therefore, it is the providence of God that no other Apostle, bishop, or priest may challenge either his Office or person; but instead they must be joining in faith with Peter and steadily holding of him.

So much for the R&R argument that the conciliar popes (and therefore, Rome) have lost the Faith!

[Meg]

The local Church of Rome cannot defect because the legitimate successor of St. Peter is there.  "For what other See was it ever said, I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith do not fail?". But what happens when there is an impostor falsely occupying the Seat of Peter? This is not an impossibility because there are historical accounts of this situation before.

St. Augustine says: "Christ praying for Peter, prayed for the rest, because in the Pastor and Prelate the people is corrected and commended". The legitimate successors of St. Peter have a special privilege by Christ's prayer and promise, never to fail in faith. Therefore, it is the providence of God that no other Apostle, bishop, or priest may challenge either his Office or person; but instead they must be joining in faith with Peter and steadily holding of him.

So much for the R&R argument that the conciliar popes (and therefore, Rome) have lost the Faith!

And yet God has allowed this situation to happen to His Church. How do you account for that? 

[2Vermont]

You either agree with this or you don't. Simple.

Why do you fail to bold the section of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry between your bolded parts?  Could it be because that section states what we've been saying all along??  That it is via PETER (aka the POPE) that the Roman Church can not lose the Faith? According to you a heretic can confirm his brethren in the Catholic Faith.  Exactly who is pushing the defectibility of the "Roman Church" again?
 
Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, "faithlessness cannot gain access" (Epistle 54).

[Ladislaus]

You either agree with this or you don't. Simple.

So how many times are you just going to spam this in there?

Please make a syllogism or argument out of this principle or shut up and stop wasting everyone's time, idiot.

[Ladislaus]

And yet God has allowed this situation to happen to His Church. How do you account for that?

Are you even conscious?  SVs deny that God has allowed this to happen because they deny that these have been actual/legitimate popes.

[Cantarella]

And yet God has allowed this situation to happen to His Church. How do you account for that?

Either the conciliar popes have not lost the Faith or they have not been the true successors of St. Peter.

I believe this to be an either /or proposition.

[Pax Vobis]

Either the conciliar popes have not lost the Faith or they have not been the true successors of St. Peter.

I believe this to be an either /or proposition.

That's because you (and many others on this forum) incorrectly believe that the magisterium/Church is the 'rule of faith'.  If you would correctly believe that Divine Truth (i.e. Scripture/Tradition/Dogma/doctrine) is the 'rule of faith' then when 1, 2 or even 90% of the clergy apostasizes, it is not a problem (a similar situation arose during Arianism).  As long as Divine Truth is not officially corrupted, the Church is still pure and Christ's promise of indefectibility is still kept.  However, when one looks at indefectibility through the lens of the hierarchy, which is composed of fallible men, then you have all kinds of problems and inconsistencies in your view because men are naturally full of problems and inconstant actions.

As Christ said "I came not to destroy but to fulfill." which shows us that Catholicism is truly the perfection of the Jєωιѕн religion.  Christ founded the Church on St Peter, as the human GUARDIAN of the Faith, but the faith was not based on the papacy - it is based on the natural law and Divine Truth, which existed LONG before St Peter and the Apostles were even born.  Therefore, to say that the 'rule of faith' is the pope, or the magisterium, or the hierarchy is to ignore history, to ignore God's plan for salvation over ALL of time, and to ignore the eternal aspect of the Church's truths/doctrines, which existed before time even was.

[TKGS]

That's because you (and many others on this forum) incorrectly believe that the magisterium/Church is the 'rule of faith'.  If you would correctly believe that Divine Truth (i.e. Scripture/Tradition/Dogma/doctrine) is the 'rule of faith' ...

So you're a Protestant.