Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism  (Read 36874 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #215 on: October 10, 2019, 11:33:13 AM »
Sweetie, hush now.

:baby:

There is not a single approved pre-conciliar theologian who has disputed that a universally accepted pope  is a dogmatic fact.

Consequently, for you to impute to Lefebvre/Williamson the questioning of the conciliar papacies is to impute to them the questioning of a dogmatic fact (which Cartachini says is a “mortal sin against the faith”).

I'm not sure how much more I can take of your idiocy.  I am not disputing the teaching regarding dogmatic fact.  I am disputing whether there is universal acceptance of Bergoglio.  I say not.  You say there is.  Consequently, you claim that the papacy of Bergoglio is dogmatic fact, while I do not.  Since +Williamson has questioned his legitimacy, you need to hold that +Williamson is a heretic, but I do not.

Your stupidity has reached levels that are breathtaking.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #216 on: October 10, 2019, 11:33:38 AM »
Quote
False: There is not a single Bishop with jurisdiction who rejects Francis’ legitimacy.

On one hand, I could argue that not 1 novus ordo bishop has any jurisdiction due to their acceptance of V2 heresy.  Thus only leaving Trad bishops as those with 'supplied' or 'potential' jurisdiction.
.
On the other hand, assuming novus ordo bishops have jurisdiction, they would only possess material jurisdiction, as their spiritual jurisdiction is "impounded" (using Fr Chazal's terminology) due to acceptance of V2 heresy.
.
On a third hand, even if you assume novus ordo bishops have full jurisdiction, while they did not reject +Francis' election by way of media (as this would be the only way we were to hear of such things, and that's assuming the media would report honestly, if at all), there are other ways which opposition could have been made publically that we are unaware of (because public does not mean "known by all" but only "able to be known by all" in the sense that eventually it would come to light).  Being that I have no evidence of this, other than the support for the idea that +Benedict's resignation was invalid, I will assume it didn't happen.
.
Further, let's assume there was no public rejection of +Francis' election.  But this does not mean that doubts and challenges have not been made since, as Socci's book (who has a history of credible witnesses and sources from inside the Vatican) and other websites have statements from Vatican officials which suggest a growing idea that +Benedict is still pope and his resignation was invalid.  Certainly this is evidence of a rejection, even if after-the-fact.  One could argue that the false translation of +Benedict's resignation letter from latin to the vernacular is a cover-up and this would make the acceptance of +Francis' resignation invalid, because it was based on lies.
.
Finally, even if we assume that +Benedict's resignation was valid, +Francis' legitimacy is being openly questioned right now, as the "dubia" letter is direct evidence.
.
All of these scenarios have some truth to them and support a doubt to some degree.


Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #217 on: October 10, 2019, 11:33:49 AM »
There is not a single Bishop with jurisdiction who rejects the New Mass or the teachings of Vatican II.

Whoop-dee-do:

I’m not defending those things as dogmatic facts.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #218 on: October 10, 2019, 11:35:35 AM »
Consequently, for you to impute to Lefebvre/Williamson the questioning of the conciliar papacies is to impute to them the questioning of a dogmatic fact (which Cartachini says is a “mortal sin against the faith”).

Does everyone need to cite these quotes for you again?  You are a dishonest liar if you claim that they have not questioned their legitimacy.

You are begging the question in assuming that the legitimacy of Bergoglio is dogmatic fact, and then lying about whether or not +Lefebvre and +Williamson ever questioned their legitimacy.  So you are using a combination of two lies to come up with your deranged conclusion.

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #219 on: October 10, 2019, 11:35:56 AM »
On one hand, I could argue that not 1 novus ordo bishop has any jurisdiction due to their acceptance of V2 heresy.  Thus only leaving Trad bishops as those with 'supplied' or 'potential' jurisdiction.
.
On the other hand, assuming novus ordo bishops have jurisdiction, they would only possess material jurisdiction, as their spiritual jurisdiction is "impounded" (using Fr Chazal's terminology) due to acceptance of V2 heresy.
.
On a third hand, even if you assume novus ordo bishops have full jurisdiction, while they did not reject +Francis' election by way of media (as this would be the only way we were to hear of such things, and that's assuming the media would report honestly, if at all), there are other ways which opposition could have been made publically that we are unaware of (because public does not mean "known by all" but only "able to be known by all" in the sense that eventually it would come to light).  Being that I have no evidence of this, I will assume it didn't happen.
.
Further, let's assume there was no public rejection of +Francis' election.  But this does not mean that doubts and challenges have not been made since, as Socci's book (who has a history of credible witnesses and sources from inside the Vatican) and other websites have statements from Vatican officials which suggest a growing idea that +Benedict is still pope and his resignation was invalid.  Certainly this is evidence of a rejection, even if after-the-fact.  One could argue that the false translation of +Benedict's resignation letter from latin to the vernacular is a cover-up and this would make the acceptance of +Francis' resignation invalid, because it was based on lies.
.
Finally, even if we assume that +Benedict's resignation was valid, +Francis' legitimacy is being openly questioned right now, as the "dubia" letter is direct evidence.
.
All of these scenarios have some truth to them and support a doubt to some degree.

You would have become an ecclesiavacantist in arguing nobody in the Church has jurisdiction, and would have become a heretic for asserting, then, that it had defected.