You frequently make a fool of yourself with erroneous scattergun accusations of posts on the anonymous forum being your (many) enemies coming back post-Ban to argue with you like some kind of paranoid.

Don't be an idiot, Mr. X.  You were caught red-handed sneaking back onto the forum.  Similarly with Croix.  He's had a half dozen accounts by now.  In fact, only an idiot would fail to detect him with his usual "Croix was right all along" posts and even a statement about the Croix he's named after in his signature line.

Ha-ha:
More malice, as if to imply I feared to answer!
In fact, it is you who was stupid in posting it, since in one of the recent threads on the subject, Archbishop Lefebvre affirmed his belief in the theology of Billot who said that the universal acceptance of the world’s bishops (dogmatic fact).
And it is also you who attributes meaning to the words of others which in fact they do not actually mean (I am thinking here is Chazal, Williamson, and Lefebvre).
It is as though is someone considers something aloud, despite not forming an opinion on it yet, you take it and run with it (like you did with Chazal), and erroneously declare to the world what they mean, even in the face of their explicit denial!
Same thing here.
Ps: Congratulations on making 8 posts in an hour on the last page alone!  Wow!

I know you would try to lie your way out of it.  Dogmatic fact means dogmatic fact.

If you were to "consider aloud" a dogma, you are a heretic.  If +Lefebvre had gone about saying that "I wonder if Mary was truly immaculately conceived." ... he would in fact be a straight-out heretic.  Apparently you're too stupid to understand the meaning of the term "dogma", Johnson.  And if you can't understand basic Catholic concepts like that, then you have absolutely no business taking a position on the crisis.

Either it's a dogma that Bergoglio is a legitimate pope, or it is not.  You can't have it both ways, Johnson.  If it's dogma, it's heresy to openly question it.

Obviously, my position is that it's most certainly not dogma, and that there is not Universal Acceptance.  And part of the argument is that Traditional Catholics themselves do not uphold it as dogma.  Just because 99% of the 99%-heretical Conciliar establishment consider them to be popes does not establish dogmatic fact.

In other words, you dishonest jackass, you were accusing sedevacantists of heresy based on the "dogmatic fact" argument, but were too stupid to realize that you thereby implicated +Lefebvre and +Williamson of heresy, because it is heretical not only to openly reject but even to openly DOUBT a dogma (go back and re-read your basic catechism before posting again on this subject).  You argued yourself into a corner but were too stupid to see it.

I know you would try to lie your way out of it.  Dogmatic fact means dogmatic fact.

If you were to "consider aloud" a dogma, you are a heretic.  If +Lefebvre had gone about saying that "I wonder if Mary was truly immaculately conceived." ... he would in fact be a straight-out heretic.  Apparently you're too stupid to understand the meaning of the term "dogma", Johnson.  And if you can't understand basic Catholic concepts like that, then you have absolutely no business taking a position on the crisis.

Either it's a dogma that Bergoglio is a legitimate pope, or it is not.  You can't have it both ways, Johnson.  If it's dogma, it's heresy to openly question it.

Obviously, my position is that it's most certainly not dogma, and that there is not Universal Acceptance.  And part of the argument is that Traditional Catholics themselves do not uphold it as dogma.  Just because 99% of the 99%-heretical Conciliar establishment consider them to be popes does not establish dogmatic fact.

In other words, you dishonest jackass, you were accusing sedevacantists of heresy based on the "dogmatic fact" argument, but were too stupid to realize that you thereby implicated +Lefebvre and +Williamson of heresy, because it is heretical not only to openly reject but even to openly DOUBT a dogma (go back and re-read your basic catechism before posting again on this subject).  You argued yourself into a corner but were too stupid to see it.

Idiot
Dishonest jackass
Liar
These are just some of the bitter fruits of the sede-Feeneyite Ladislaus
Matthew: please fight the temptation to keep him around for his high traffic value (which is more than offset by him toxic personality)
He belongs only as a moderator to a Diamond Bros forum, where he would be happily surrounded by like-minded zealots.

I know you would try to lie your way out of it.  Dogmatic fact means dogmatic fact.

If you were to "consider aloud" a dogma, you are a heretic.  If +Lefebvre had gone about saying that "I wonder if Mary was truly immaculately conceived." ... he would in fact be a straight-out heretic.  Apparently you're too stupid to understand the meaning of the term "dogma", Johnson.  And if you can't understand basic Catholic concepts like that, then you have absolutely no business taking a position on the crisis.

Either it's a dogma that Bergoglio is a legitimate pope, or it is not.  You can't have it both ways, Johnson.  If it's dogma, it's heresy to openly question it.

Obviously, my position is that it's most certainly not dogma, and that there is not Universal Acceptance.  And part of the argument is that Traditional Catholics themselves do not uphold it as dogma.  Just because 99% of the 99%-heretical Conciliar establishment consider them to be popes does not establish dogmatic fact.

In other words, you dishonest jackass, you were accusing sedevacantists of heresy based on the "dogmatic fact" argument, but were too stupid to realize that you thereby implicated +Lefebvre and +Williamson of heresy, because it is heretical not only to openly reject but even to openly DOUBT a dogma (go back and re-read your basic catechism before posting again on this subject).  You argued yourself into a corner but were too stupid to see it.

Too funny:

In order to try and win an argument, Ladislaus wants to confound dogmatic fact with dogma (as though they are one and the same).

One becomes a heretic by rejecting dogma, but not by rejecting s dogmatic fact (to which the theologians ascribe the theological note of “theologically certain” but not infallible, and a concept which the Church itself has never defined, and did not even exist 150 years ago).

Have fun rolling in the mud with someone else.

Just had to get that in there😊

Legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants = dogma.

Doubting a dogma makes someone a heretic.

+Lefebvre and +Williamson have doubted the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.

Conclusion (of SeanJohnson):  +Lefebvre and +Williamson were/are heretics.

Please explain why this isn't the case.  Your last equivocation made it sound like you think it's not heresy to doubt a dogma, but that is patently and demonstrably false.  Simply look up any catechism definition of heresy, they include not only the denial but also the doubt of a dogma.  "I'm not sure that Our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament." = heresy, not just "consider[ing] aloud" (as you tried to water it down).

Refuted in previous post.

It seems to me that there is quite a bit of support out there to suggest that Archbishop Lefebrve was never sure one way or another...a very conflicted man.

Yup.  In the end,I will not be judged based on what Lefevbre believed, neither will anyone else. Same with whether Bergoglio is the "Pope"  don't see how he could be.  I'm not the Pope, NEITHER was Lefevbre.  To many in the SSPX orbit seem concerned with whether or Not ABL was SV or not, and THAT reeks of a Cult of Personality, not the faith.  What does the Church teach and has always done so?  SVism is certainly a legitimate opinion to be held, and frankly it makes the most sense as opposed to calling someone Pope and rejecting everything he says and does. I go to an SSPX church ONLY because it is all I have (for now?) in Kansas City and have for 30 years.  For now their sacraments are valid, but the philosophical inconsistencies of this practical SV group, tho not formally so (dishonest?) remain and have always been there.  I Notice that most of the concerns (resistance?) arise as they shake off more and more of this "practical SVism" and become a more consistent high church conciliarist organization WITHIN a false church.  Now if that is not true, I need to pack my bags and head over to the local banner strewn peace and love Community" that is up front novus ordo.  

Quote from: Ladislaus
Unbelievable.  So now your answer is that dogmatic facts are only "theologically certain".  Theological certainties and dogmas are mutually-exclusive theological notes.  One theologian writing during the reign of Pius XII wrote that to reject the legitimacy of Pius XII would be heresy.  This concept is implicit in the very notion of dogma itself.  If you cannot have dogmatic certainty regarding legitimacy, then you cannot have dogmatic certainty about any dogmas the popes define.  If there's room for doubt about Pius XII, then there's room for doubt about The Assumption.

Be that as it may, you need to retract your statement that papal legitimacy is dogmatic fact.  In fact, you just did ... even though you'll never admit that you did.  And sedevacantists, therefore, are no more hereticaler than +Lefebvre and +Williamson.

The only dispute among theologians about dogmatic fact is whether they are of Divine Faith or merely Ecclesiastical Faith.  But they all agree that they are de fide.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia under “dogmatic fact:”

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Other [/color]theologians[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)] hold that the definitions of dogmatic facts, in the wider and stricter acceptation, are received, not by Divine [/color]faith[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)], but by [/color]ecclesiastical faith[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)], which some call mediate Divine [/color]faith[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]. They hold that in such syllogisms as this: "Every duly elected pontiff is Peter's successor; but [/color]Pius X[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)], for example, is a duly elected pontiff; therefore he is a successor of Peter", the conclusion is not formally revealed by [/color]God[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)], but is inferred from a revealed and an unrevealed proposition, and that consequently it is believed, not by Divine, but by [/color]ecclesiastical faith[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)].[/color]

In other words, the theological note of dogmatic facts (as opposed to dogma proper) is disputed, and the Church has not ruled on the matter.