CathInfo.com

Meg, if only you would profess that JXXIII was not a valid pope, you would not be in schism.

J23 is long dead, so you can't exactly be in schism from him.

Lefebvre and almost all  other OG trads atleast doubted, if not knew it was invalid. I said it very clear in my las reply. Vatican II is not a valid council as John xxiii was not a true pope. If you think that John xxiii was a true pope, then you must accept v2 or you are in schism.

I think "accepting" Vatican II is vague terminology.  What exactly does it mean to accept it?  Paul VI himself said its not defining any infallible dogma.  Now I get, as Ladislaus and other people would point out, that's not supposed to mean that it can be positively harmful, and there could be room for debate regarding just how off a pastoral council that's accepted by basically all bishops can be, but I don't think even the Vatican (or at least the Vatican under Benedict XVI) said the thing was completely above criticism.

All that said, this criticism would apply to +Lefebvre too.  He did have doubts about it, I realize he also had *doubts* about the Popes at times, but he NEVER straight up rejected them like you are.

Hey, I'm not asking you or anyone else to endorse my newly arrived at position concerning SVism , or to take my side on any other topic.  But in the interests of preserving forum sanity, I ask for your assistance in bringing this unfortunate thread to an end.

Just my two-cents worth:

I agree that the thread should come to and end - but the discussion will just keep going on other threads - since the sedes and sedeprivationists dominate the forum.

You said that you don't want anyone to endorse your newly arrived at position of SVism, so I suggest that you not start another thread in which you contend that +ABL would be an SV if he were still alive.

If forum members want to hold the SV position, I don't really care. It's that they often insist that everyone who has any Catholic sense or intelligence HAS to hold the SV or sedeprivationist position. I don't happen to believe that R&R is absolutely or necessarily the correct view. Most who hold the R&R position aren't dogmatic about it, though Ladislaus will falsely accuse us of it, because he's vindictive.

We can't see the whole picture. That's what SV's and their fellow travelers don't get.

Yes, Sean was a bit unhinged on this thread. Even I have to admit that. And....I don't think it was appropriate to say that Ladislaus should be banned, when he was really only joking about that, and not serious. This subject seems to bring out the worst in traditional Catholics. But they, it does bring a lot of traffic to the forum, so who am I to complain?