CathInfo.com

Quote from: Nishant

LOL.

And yet Wernz-Vidal cited above also teach, "acceptatio illa Ecclesiae non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae electionis." Please read carefully, this is conceptually distinct from ecclesiastical convalidation strictly so called. This is rather a sign and effect of a valid election.

The learned Dom Gueranger treats both together in these words, "when it is proved that the Church ... acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself” from which it follows that in any case we cannot doubt an election after the condition of such acceptance is verified.

Thus the notion of universal acceptance is indeed key and anyone who wishes to be a sedevacantist of any stripe must in the first place labor to show that, despite appearances, such recognition of the Pope does not exist.

You know, Mith, if it's ok with you, we can stop here. You and those who agree with you've made your case, and we've made ours. It's obvious to me now that we're not going to agree, I'm content to let the issue rest here.

Clemens Maria, sacramental validity is too big an issue to go into, but I for my part agree with Fr. Marie and Fr. Scott over Fr. Cekada, I'll explain why in more detail, if necessary on a separate thread, later.  

Nishant-

Why do you bother?

They don't want to hear it.

If after the "Trifecta" articles, in combination with Vennari's, they still want to maintain their hallucination, I say the wisdom of the philosopher Fleetwood Mac ought to prevail:

"You can go your own way."

Good disposition is clearly not there.

So why make the effort?

The articles attack a straw man, and clearly avoid the issue.  We are not avoiding anything, but those that publish these very clever and misleading articles will one day have to answer for it.

As has been stated:  none of us have ever said that unauthorized bishops, priests, laypeople can make a juridical judgment.  So if you attack us on that you are beating a straw man.  

We are judging a public crime, based on public evidence.  This type of judgment does not bind others as a juridical judgment would.  

But all of this is a sort of game to you anyway, as you don't believe that Popes really have any power anyway.  They are just figureheads that can be perpetually ignored and diaobeyed.  What exactly is the practical difference between you and a member of Greek "orthodoxy?"

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Nishant

LOL.

And yet Wernz-Vidal cited above also teach, "acceptatio illa Ecclesiae non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae electionis." Please read carefully, this is conceptually distinct from ecclesiastical convalidation strictly so called. This is rather a sign and effect of a valid election.

The learned Dom Gueranger treats both together in these words, "when it is proved that the Church ... acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself” from which it follows that in any case we cannot doubt an election after the condition of such acceptance is verified.

Thus the notion of universal acceptance is indeed key and anyone who wishes to be a sedevacantist of any stripe must in the first place labor to show that, despite appearances, such recognition of the Pope does not exist.

You know, Mith, if it's ok with you, we can stop here. You and those who agree with you've made your case, and we've made ours. It's obvious to me now that we're not going to agree, I'm content to let the issue rest here.

Clemens Maria, sacramental validity is too big an issue to go into, but I for my part agree with Fr. Marie and Fr. Scott over Fr. Cekada, I'll explain why in more detail, if necessary on a separate thread, later.  

Nishant-

Why do you bother?

They don't want to hear it.

If after the "Trifecta" articles, in combination with Vennari's, they still want to maintain their hallucination, I say the wisdom of the philosopher Fleetwood Mac ought to prevail:

"You can go your own way."

Good disposition is clearly not there.

So why make the effort?

The articles attack a straw man, and clearly avoid the issue.  We are not avoiding anything, but those that publish these very clever and misleading articles will one day have to answer for it.

As has been stated:  none of us have ever said that unauthorized bishops, priests, laypeople can make a juridical judgment.  So if you attack us on that you are beating a straw man.  

We are judging a public crime, based on public evidence.  This type of judgment does not bind others as a juridical judgment would.  

But all of this is a sort of game to you anyway, as you don't believe that Popes really have any power anyway.  They are just figureheads that can be perpetually ignored and diaobeyed.  What exactly is the practical difference between you and a member of Greek "orthodoxy?"

The papacy?

Now its my turn:

Please quote for me where any manual says a layman may declare a Pope deposed, or that you may judge the alleged public defection of a Pope (where the article just quoted from CFN expressly quotes both Suarez and St. Bellarmine, et al, as saying exactly the opposite).

You're entertaining the strawman again.

The use of the word "declare" on your and Siscoe's part is a misleading verb, carrying with it the implication of other misleading adjectives, as if what sedevacantists believe is "solemn" or "official" or "binding" but that's simply not the case.  Having been in the seminary, I'm sure you understand how the conscience is given license to act according to moral certainty arrived at by a particular judgement.  We make judgements all the time, about everything-- we actually have to in order to act.  A judgement which is arrived at with moral certainty allows a person to act safely in regards to it.  

In the case of sedevacantism*, certain clergy and laymen have arrived at a morally certain judgement based on the evidence available to them that these men are not popes, and they then act according to that judgement.  This is a perfectly sound and safe principle of moral theology.

This is completely different than the idea which you and Siscoe are continually alluding to, the idea of a "solemn declaration" by a lay person; but no such declaration is being made by any respectable sedevacantist.  You are confusing (how, I'm not sure) the confidence of the sedevacantists in their position with them binding others to it-- something which they couldn't do even if they tried, but they don't even try to so it really is a strawman.


------------------------
*Besides moral certainty, others may arrive at the opinion of sedevacantism via doubt toward the putative Roman Pontiff's legitimacy.  This position has the same end point (of adopting the sedevacantist position) but the order of operations and constituents thereof are a little different.  However, it is not necessary to delve into them because the case is already made, and most sedevacantists adopt the position out of moral certainty to the non-pontificate rather than doubt toward the putative pontificate.  I just wanted to point that out, so that the implication isn't that one need be morally certain about the sede vacante in order to behave as if it were true.