Just keep in mind that SJ, XavierSem, Praeter, Disco and Salsa and all the other nutty r&r people have no authority.  You aren’t in schism or heresy with any Novus Ordo Bishops so no worries.  If Frank is the pope we’re all saved.  If he’s not the pope it is the r&r people who tried to excommunicate everyone who have big troubles.

If he is the Pope, wouldn't sedevacantists who tried to anathemize people for rejecting their opinion also be in trouble?

It would seem a Novus Ordo bishop would have more meaningful authority here.

Yes: Start On page 1, and read to present.

Obviously Sean’s favorite book is “How to make friends and influence people”.  

I can’t recall the last time I saw 3 consecutive posts by non Feeneyite/non sedevacantists here.

I mean, I'm neither, but I suspect you'd accuse me of being both... somehow...

Lad:
Lad, as the forum member who started this topic, I appeal to you to end this debate.  It is going on 3800 views and I've forgotten how many pages.  The topic needs to be put out of its misery. I  am asking you and the others to desist in the interests of maintaining CI as a viable and reasonably informative chat site.  I apologize for having introduced it in the first place.
Obviously, SJ, (in my opinion certainly) is an unhinged, maybe even deranged individual.  Just look at how he responded to me yesterday.  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.
Bp. Williamson has been informed of SJ's remarks to me.  They're extremely bizarre.  But it's up to him if we wants to continue an association with SJ.

Alright, hollingsworth, I'll back off.  This is an issue I'm keenly interested in, because it's crucial to forming our consciences.  And I've enjoyed bouncing thoughts off ByzCat and Pax, who both appear to be inquiring sincerely into the truth of the matter ... even though neither are sedevacantists.  Unfortunately, SeanJohnson derailed the conversation.

Indeed, the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy must be known a priori from some external criterion.  Theologians all agree that this criterion is the universal peaceful acceptance of the Church.  Question is whether such universal peaceful acceptance exists or existed in the case of the V2 papal claimants.  Now, the other thing is that there are OTHER possible explanations for what happened with Vatican II and the New Mass.  Could Paul VI have been blackmailed (on account of, say, his alleged ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activities)?  That too would have rendered any forced acts of his null and void.  We just don't know.

With regard to Universal Acceptance, what happens in situations where the vast majority of the "Church" have succuмbed to the same errors as the papal claimant?  When 90%+ of the Conciliar establishment are heretics (as demonstrated by their own polls), then how they heck can that count for anything?

Alright, hollingsworth, I'll back off.  This is an issue I'm keenly interested in, because it's crucial to forming our consciences.  And I've enjoyed bouncing thoughts off ByzCat and Pax, who both appear to be inquiring sincerely into the truth of the matter ... even though neither are sedevacantists.  Unfortunately, SeanJohnson derailed the conversation.

Indeed, the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy must be known a priori from some external criterion.  Theologians all agree that this criterion is the universal peaceful acceptance of the Church.  Question is whether such universal peaceful acceptance exists or existed in the case of the V2 papal claimants.  Now, the other thing is that there are OTHER possible explanations for what happened with Vatican II and the New Mass.  Could Paul VI have been blackmailed (on account of, say, his alleged ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activities)?  That too would have rendered any forced acts of his null and void.  We just don't know.

With regard to Universal Acceptance, what happens in situations where the vast majority of the "Church" have succuмbed to the same errors as the papal claimant?  When 90%+ of the Conciliar establishment are heretics (as demonstrated by their own polls), then how they heck can that count for anything?

LMAO!

Howlingsworth announces he goes sede, and wants to brawl, but then wants his mommy to make it stop when it doesn’t go his way, and writes to a Bishop with whom he disagrees, and against whom he has made many calumnies, to complain that Sean is arguing with him!



Then, seeing Lad getting raked over the coals and thoroughly thrashed on the subject of dogmatic facts, tries to bail out his new ally by providing him an exit strategy: “Oh, the thread has been derailed; please desist!”

Holly: I will help you both out.  I accept your surrender.

Lad, as the forum member who started this topic, I appeal to you to end this debate.  It is going on 3800 views and I've forgotten how many pages.

Who cares how long a thread goes on?  You continually complain about this and I just don't get it.

Unfortunately, SeanJohnson derailed the conversation.

That's an understatement.  Sean is a monotonous "chest thumper" who seems to miss his glory days of high school, so he visits this site to throw around adolescent barbs in place of actual adult conversation.  Somehow he gets fulfillment from such activities.

Alright, hollingsworth, I'll back off.  This is an issue I'm keenly interested in, because it's crucial to forming our consciences.  And I've enjoyed bouncing thoughts off ByzCat and Pax, who both appear to be inquiring sincerely into the truth of the matter ... even though neither are sedevacantists.  Unfortunately, SeanJohnson derailed the conversation.

Indeed, the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy must be known a priori from some external criterion.  Theologians all agree that this criterion is the universal peaceful acceptance of the Church.  Question is whether such universal peaceful acceptance exists or existed in the case of the V2 papal claimants.  Now, the other thing is that there are OTHER possible explanations for what happened with Vatican II and the New Mass.  Could Paul VI have been blackmailed (on account of, say, his alleged ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activities)?  That too would have rendered any forced acts of his null and void.  We just don't know.

With regard to Universal Acceptance, what happens in situations where the vast majority of the "Church" have succuмbed to the same errors as the papal claimant?  When 90%+ of the Conciliar establishment are heretics (as demonstrated by their own polls), then how they heck can that count for anything?

I started a new thread, quoting the substantive portion on this, so if you're interested in continuing it we can continue it there.